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 8[edit]

July 7[edit]


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) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonTrew (talkcontribs)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 20:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


Neither are mentioned at the target. I'm not sure if these are examples of particular dragons but with no context in the target article these should be deleted. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

  • "Skulblaka" seems to be the word for "dragon" in the Inheritance Cycle, but it's not mentioned there. "Octapsida" might be nonsense—Google is only returning Wikipedia mirrors. --BDD (talk) 19:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I notice that skulblaka was created with the edit summary "Feel free to delete this if you want". However it was created right around the time that the film adaptation of one of the Inheritance Cycle novels was released, so that's probably relevant. But if it's not mentioned somewhere then it's probably not worth keeping. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:46, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


Delete. Not a Chinese topic. Gorobay (talk) 18:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Star Trek: Continuum[edit]

It looks like this could refer to a few things. Retargeting to Star Trek: The Q Continuum would be an improvement but seems imperfect. Q Continuum itself redirects to Q (Star Trek), which doesn't seem a good target. There's always deletion. --BDD (talk) 15:49, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - seems to be a mod for the remake of Homeworld 2, although not mentioned on the game's page. It's not related to Q; probably best to delete since there are many things in the Star Trek universe that "continuum" could refer to. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Sonic shower[edit]

WP:NOTWIKIA; not mentioned in the target article or anywhere else. BDD (talk) 15:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

List of Star Trek writers[edit]

This was a list until December; the target article names a few Star Trek writers, of course, but not most. And I don't think we have such a dedicated list anywhere else. Delete or restore? --BDD (talk) 15:44, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


Seems to me to be better suited to Vibrating alert. Also looks different depending on font, and I'm not sure what that version is supposed to represent. Adam9007 (talk) 15:14, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Clean vocals[edit]

This was formerly an article before it was PRODded and redirected. Now it's what I call a condescending redirect—a reader searching for "Clean vocals" almost certainly knows what singing is, and the more specific subject isn't mentioned at all in that article. BDD (talk) 14:31, 7 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!
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:10, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Ministry of Social Affairs which is sort of the same as Si Trew's idea. My impression from the internet is that "social affairs" is a European equivalent to what we call "social development" in Canada, and both are almost entirely within the context of government services, so might as well target the Ministry itself (or its dab page, in this case). "Social work" is not quite the same. I'm not sure what you call it in the U.S., "social security" is close, or Department of Why Should I Have To Pay For My Neighbour's Health Insurance or some such. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:59, 7 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)
Ah, now I recall my irrelevance. Bob Flowerdew is a presenter on Gardener's Question Time. Whether that is useful or not I don't know but that was going through me head for three days now. Si Trew (talk) 15:14, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 13:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per Neelix. I was surprised to find when I searched this that it is in fact a synonym for "floral" or "flowery", as in a print or design. Not one I've heard before, but I'm not every dialect of English, now am I? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:33, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


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 ([1]) 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)
Well old bean where is the hyphen? Webster link is essentially a redlink that says "What made you look up tween-brain". {{R from other punctuation}} possibly, but I think it would be bad to set a precedent that apostrophes are acceptable in English Wikipedia. (They're very common at the starts of words in Dutch language, particularly 't "the"). Si Trew (talk) 09:28, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
By the way it should be biencephalon. Di- is Latin, Bi- Greek. We don't have the stub noun, and WP:RFOREIGN, WP:NOTENGLISH. Si Trew (talk) 09:33, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Comment Am I a liar? When this was listed it had apos at the front ''Tweenbrain: or was that another listing? I don't mind being wrong but I'm an idiot if I am arguing the wrong thing. Now, don't mess with Mr. In-Between.(Roy Fox and his Orchestra). Si Trew (talk) 09:37, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, confusing. My first thought was that it referred to the brain of a Tween (preadolescence). Since it's not well defined at either place, we might find some confusion. -- Tavix (talk) 14:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete'. Sorry, I messed with Mr. In-Between. Wonderful song. Sung I think on covers by fred who didn't do it well, and by wossname, Bing Crosby he did it nice. But I spent twenty years studying the piano before I said, yep, that's definitely a piano. Si Trew (talk) 15:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 13:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I didn't notice what appears to be Si's reply to my !vote above, but it's "alternate hyphenation" because there's a hyphen in once instance versus none in the other. Alternate hyphenation doesn't have to be a space. I reiterate that this is a defined medical term for this brain structure, thus the redirect goes where it should. I still doubt the likelihood of confusion, but if we must, then hatnote: Tweenbrain redirects here. For the thought processes of preadolescent humans, see Justin Bieber. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:04, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


I'm not entirely sure about this, but depending on the font used, I think this could refer specifically to Eight-ball. Maybe disambiguate? Adam9007 (talk) 03:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep - this one is called BILLIARDS; our billiards already targets cue sports. This renders as the eight-ball on certain systems but I think that is not a distinct enough topic that we would need to disambiguate. I suppose we could do "🎱, which sometimes renders as a picture of an eight-ball, redirects here. For other uses, see eight-ball (disambiguation)" but this would be the first emoji hatnote that I know of. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:51, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete You've seen my position on emojis—especially where there's ambiguity, just throw them out. Rack (billiards) is the first thing I thought of when I saw this. Maybe it's cue sports broadly, maybe it's an eight ball... maybe this will cause more confusion than it will resolve. --BDD (talk) 18:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


I don't think this refers to just any Post Office, but specifically Japanese ones (and possibly other East Asian ones, but I'm not sure, Japanese certainly). According to this (it is the same character; it may look different depending on the font used), this is the case. Maybe retarget to Japan Post, or Japanese postal mark, as this redirect (which looks just like this emoji) does? Adam9007 (talk) 02:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:RFD#D8. I doubt that anyone use a symbol to look up info one the post office let alone a foreign one.-- (talk) 04:20, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
    • In that case, we'd have to delete all the other emoji redirects (of which there are plenty) too. Some have been nominated for deletion and were kept. Adam9007 (talk) 15:04, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Japanese postal mark as a more specific target. This always renders either as the Japan Post icon, or a building with this icon on the front, depending on the system. Also, this emoji is called JAPANESE POST OFFICE. The other, at , is just called POSTAL MARK but looks to me to be the same thing. Note also that there is 🏤 EUROPEAN POST OFFICE though it doesn't render on my system. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
  • 'Comment -- this looks like a box-drawing character to me. Eman235/talk 21:14, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Similar to ╤, yeah. That character is BOX DRAWINGS DOWN SINGLE AND HORIZONTAL DOUBLE. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:24, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
      • It look similar, but it's not the same. ╤ is a box drawing character, 〒 is a (Japanese) postal mark, and 🏣 (as I see it) is the same mark, but means Japanese Post Office (its appearance depends on the system). Adam9007 (talk) 23:44, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

July 6[edit]


Delete per WP:RFD#D8; sea turtles don't have any special affinity to Japanese. -- Tavix (talk) 20:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


Delete as I'm not seeing any notable uses of this acronym. -- Tavix (talk) 20:21, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Light blue touch paper[edit]

As a phrase, "light the blue touch paper" means "to kick things off" or "to get things started". (It looks like it is purely a British saying though.) Sure, it could mean fireworks, but I think it's confusing to target it there when it's not mentioned, especially when someone will probably want the meaning of the phrase. Blue touch paper redirects to His Master's Voice (radio series) but it might be a stretch to retarget there. -- Tavix (talk) 20:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Well "light blue touch paper" doesn't have a Wiktionary entry, so I'd say no. -- Tavix (talk) 22:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Sea of Magellan[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 as my concerns have been satisfied. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 02:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I think this might be better off at Strait of Magellan, but would like some discussion first. Is this even a necessary redirect to have? -- Tavix (talk) 19:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep »Sea of Magellan« and ​»(Great) South Sea« were historically common alternative names for the Pacific Ocean, as can be seen at a glance through some 17th-century maps or modern scholarly texts, e.g. in Mercedes Maroto Camino’s Producing the Pacific: Maps and Narratives of Spanish Exploration, p. 76:

Up to the eighteenth century, the three names, South Sea, Mare Magellanicum, and Pacific Ocean, alternated and shared the space we now know as the North and South Pacific.

The name also appears with this meaning in various texts of the era, e.g. in Thomas Hackett’s translation of André Thevet’s The new found vvorlde, or Antarctike wherin is contained woderful and strange things:

This straight hath ben long time desired and sought, more than two thousand, eight hundreth leagues, for to enter by this straight into the Sea of Magellan, to attayne to the Ilandes of Moluques.

Here the Moluccas are attested to be in the Sea of Magellan, further confirming that the term refers to the Pacific as a whole. It is »entered by« the strait, but it is not the strait itself. In general, anyone who comes across references like this in old texts might want to know what the term refers to, and hence a redirect seems useful. Vorziblix (talk) 21:52, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @Vorziblix: I appreciate that explanation, that actually helped a lot. My problem with this redirect is that "Sea of Magellan" isn't mentioned anywhere in the "Pacific Ocean" article. Readers who stumble upon the Pacific Ocean article from that redirect don't necessarily know they are synonyms without an explanation and could end up confused (like I was). I'm assuming it would be easy to mention with your source. Since you're the one with the source, would you be willing to add a little explanation of Sea of Magellan there? If so, I'll gladly withdraw. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 22:15, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Done. Thanks, Vorziblix (talk) 23:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Great! Withdrawing now. -- Tavix (talk) 02:18, 7 July 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.

Fishes Taxonomy (Sharks)[edit]

Delete as an implausible search term. This isn't helping anyone find "Fishes Taxonomy" (if it existed). -- Tavix (talk) 18:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - not currently useful; implausible search term. Way back in 2005 it looks like someone was working on a project to create taxonomy pages for many types of fish, and made this redirect to shark taxonomy, which at the time was a long list of many species of sharks. Later it was broken out into taxonomy pages by each order of shark (e.g. Shark taxonomy Order Carcharhiniformes, Shark taxonomy Order Lamniformes, Shark taxonomy Order Orectolobiformes, etc.) and the main taxonomy page was redirected to shark (and we all know what happens to double redirects). However, there don't seem to be any other "Fishes Taxonomy" pages of this form. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per Ivanvector. We have nothing along the lines of Fish taxonomy or even Animal taxonomy. At first glance, I want to say delete the "Shark taxonomy Order" redirects, but they may be useful, particularly if the target articles have good taxonomic information. --BDD (talk) 19:39, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
I think those are at least left over {{R from page move}}ses, and might thus be useful. I didn't want to go to the bother of nominating and then merging all of them. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:50, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Hat Day[edit]

Here's a WP:SURPRISE. I'm assuming this is a play on the "Canada is America's Hat" joke. However, it's not mentioned at Canada Day and I haven't seen any serious uses of the term. There are a few articles that mention a form of a "hat day" but I'm not sure if any of them are notable enough for a retarget. Thoughts? -- Tavix (talk) 18:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - that is a surprise. There are many search results for various Hat Days and National Hat Days (even a couple International Hat Days) but none agree on a date, and they all seem to be promotional. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as possible article. I found different hat days on my google search. Some of these holidays might actually be notable. Perhaps it's best to delete this redirect to encourage article creation. --Lenticel (talk) 01:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


This is a follow up to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 May 21#Template:Club. {{Heart}} was moved to {{Heart anatomy}} back in 2011. I would like to propose this retargeted to {{Hearts}} for the same reason that {{Club}} redirects to {{Clubs}} and {{Spade}} redirects to {{Spades}}. For one, it would be an {{R from modification}} and I would assume more people would want over a nav box. With {{heart anatomy}}, I feel like that nav box isn't going to get much bigger, so a shortcut isn't going to be as necessary. However, since it is an {{R from move}}, I figured it might be controversial so I thought it might be a good idea to get discussion about it first. -- Tavix (talk) 18:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Retarget per nom; seems reasonable. Check transclusions first, of course. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:39, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Category:1959 establiishments in Iowa[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy delete. --BDD (talk) 18:22, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

unlikely to be searched for Tim! (talk) 17:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Note: The creator requested speedy deletion via G7. -- Tavix (talk) 18:13, 6 July 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.


WP:SURPRISE. I'm confused as to what "Top 100" has to do with non-free content and specifically a section on unacceptable use of non-free text. I expected this was going to be a list of articles which are exceptional for some reason, or else an actual list of 100 of something, but it's neither of those things. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:50, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment - Oh I see, point 4 has to do with acceptability of recreating "top 100" lists on Wikipedia. I'm still not sure this is the best use for this shortcut. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:52, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak keep: yes, I created this as a shortcut for these types of copyvio cases when clearing up a bunch of them last year, mostly just in edit summaries. Looks it's not getting much use on talk pages from inbound links, but one other editor has adopted it. (I realise in retrospect that my referring to something as a "WP:TOP100 article" in a talk thread further down was not a particularly great sentence, which seems to be what triggered this RfD.) --McGeddon (talk) 20:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Geisha cocktail[edit]

This cocktail isn't mentioned in the target article; it seems only a few of the most prominent ones are. BDD (talk) 15:34, 6 July 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)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


WP:FORRED. Water isn't specific to Faroese, Icelandic, Norwegian, or Old Norse, thank God. As an acronym, it only seems to refer to "variable-area turbine nozzle", which is mentioned at Variable-geometry turbocharger#History and examples of use. I don't think that's a good retargeting option, though. BDD (talk) 14:45, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - if variable-area turbine nozzle had not been a redlink prior to this comment, I would suggest matching its target, but since it appears not to be a useful acronym, it's not a useful redirect. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Water projects[edit]

Simply redirecting this to Water seems unhelpful. My first thought was retarget to Hydrography, though perhaps Hydraulic engineering (Water engineering redirects there) would be better. Keeping and refining the target to Water#Human uses could also work. I don't think this is a good candidate for disambiguation, since "water projects" is a bit vague and an unlikely search term. BDD (talk) 14:39, 6 July 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)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm generally content to delete nominations without discussion after the full listing period (see WP:SILENCE and compare to WP:PROD). But since this was on TOP100, since a merge is involved, and since there's some significant history, I'm not ready to pull the trigger yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as a redirect to nothing, since the copyvio was removed. I don't understand what "top 100" has to do with non-free content. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:46, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
My bad. I confused TOP100 with TOPRED, and obviously didn't follow that link. --BDD (talk) 16:20, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Oh I get what you meant now. Well, still if there's nothing at the target then this redirect is not helping, and it should go back on TOPRED until someone decides to write an[other] article about it. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:56, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

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)
  • Keep surprisingly frequent misspelling - Pubic is one I've patrolled for years and fixed hundreds of typos in Wikipedia articles. I don't see having the redirect as being disruptive, and "high risk" implies moving from dealing with actual problems to theoretical ones. Of course as a typo it isn't being used as a redirect in articles, but it is being used by some of our readers as a search term, if we delete redirects because they are only of use to readers who misspell searches then we would waste much time, delete a shed load of redirects and do our readers a disservice for zero benefit. The reasoning at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2008 December 13#Pubic goods→Public good does not apply here as this is a single typo rather than a double one, and there is only one plausible place for this typo to be redirected to. Fair enough delete implausible redirects and ones where there is no obvious target, both reasons applied to Pubic Goods, neither reason applies to Pubic transportation. ϢereSpielChequers 08:06, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
You might be right, but I wouldn't call "Public goods" a double typo. "Goods" wasn't a typo for "good", any more than "transportation" is for "transport". They're both valid alternative forms, with the true typo of "pubic" in both cases. --BDD (talk) 13:54, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 13:54, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - OK, I'm not very consistent this week, but I do see this as a plausible misspelling, and if it becomes a target for disruption it can be protected. Someone found it useful to create this at some point. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Food battle by smosh[edit]

Delete, unlikely search term, Smosh already has numerous redirects. 117Avenue (talk) 06:11, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep Food Battle is mentioned at the target article, so users searching for information on it will be helped. Redirects aren't always synonyms, nor do they have to be. --BDD (talk) 13:56, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Murine polyomavirus[edit]

Procedural nomination. Bervin61 opened an AfD for this, but it belongs here. This is a redirect from a species to its family. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:30, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Bervin61 left this nomination rationale at the AfD: "This page is for a virus species, which is a member of the family it is redirected to. However, it is not the only species in that family, and so is not synonymous with it. It is common practice that whenever a genus contains only one species, or a family contains only one genus, that one page be redirected to the other, but that is not the case here. Additionally, there are several species in the same family that do not have pages and are not redirects to the family. Bervin61 (talk) 21:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)"

  • Delete to encourage article creation. Of course, someone who is knowledgeable in these types of viruses can convert this redirect to an article. --Lenticel (talk) 04:44, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep pending article creation; any editor can write over the redirect. In the meantime the redirect from this species to the family it belongs to makes sense to me, and I don't think it matters at all that there are other species within the same family. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:42, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

July 5[edit]


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, [2], 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)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 15:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete No demonstration so far that this is more than a fleeting disparagement by the dissent. If we do keep it, we should probably re-target to an article where it is used and explained: King_v._Burwell#Dissent. With all due respect to Brian Babin, the vast majority of users typing in this term would be surprised to be redirected to his page. If it becomes widely used in the future, like Obamacare, then redirecting to the act itself would make sense. (talk) 17:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - my !vote was partly in jest, but also not really. With respect to 24.151, no respect is really due to Rep. Babin, he's an idiot.[1]


  1. ^ Marks, Michael (8 January 2015). "Freshman Brian Babin explains “present” vote in defiance of Speaker John Boehner". The Dallas Morning News. Retrieved 5 July 2015. ...another idiot Texan congressman... 


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)
  • @Ivanvector: I just realized that I inadvertently answered your question below in response to BDD. Check out that article I posted, it might help clear some things up. -- Tavix (talk) 16:46, 2 July 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[3] 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)
Just confirming that link only shows a larger version of the character, which still varies based on your software (and hardware?). I'm looking on a Chromebook now, and it looks like an angry squid with light-up stalks (no longer eye stalks). Still doesn't look like anything I know of from Space Invaders. --BDD (talk) 16:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I regularly switch back and forth between editing from a computer (Windows 8 Firefox/Chrome) and my iPhone and it's been crazy seeing just how different it is. My computer shows an angry green alien with eye-stalks but my phone renders what looks like a pixelated purple crab. This is an excellent article that explains the situation and contains a graphic showing 5 versions of this emoji. -- Tavix (talk) 16:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • soft redirect to wikt:👾 as it's defined there. We don't have an article on "alien monsters" so this is the best way for someone to find out what the emoji is. -- Tavix (talk) 15:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 15:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to wikt:👾 per Tavix, to break the stalemate, pending a discussion about what should be done (per BDD) regarding all of these fairly ambiguous emoji redirects. I haven't struck my earlier !vote because I'd be happy with that result too. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete:I've said this before, and I'll say it again: the probability of someone actually trying to type an emoji into the search box is very small. Compassionate727 (talk) 00:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
At the very least Space Invaders does not work since this creature does not look of any of the one from the game.-- (talk) 03:39, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Good find, but the problem with this emoji (as is the case with many other emoji) is that it appears very differently depending on the reader's platform, as noted above. We don't have the technical capability to redirect to different targets based on the user's operating system or browser, so wherever we target this, it's going to be surprising to some users. Apparently iOS users see a Space Invader, and won't be expecting a page on bug-eyed monsters. Conversely, some other users see the bug-eyed monster (myself included) and won't expect a redirect to the video game. And even some other users see an icon which is neither of these two things. Disambiguation was suggested but I think we should resist this. It's not that 👾 is ambiguous: it's literally a different glyph to different users. We disambiguate apple because it's a word in our language with different meanings, but every user who renders this page sees the green text apple; nobody is seeing an entirely different word in green right there, and if they were, how would we disambiguate? How would we even know, for that matter? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:32, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete:Implausible. Bazj (talk) 06:42, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree, the image has a completely different shape and color when I look on it from my PC/Wii U and my Ipad. Had I not known that they were from the same RFD I would have assumed that they were two completely different images. The Ipad image has somewhat a resemblance to one of the Space Invaders but the round faced black creature with big eyes connected to lines ememnting from the top of its head on my PC looks nothing like one at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:45, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Related discussion - I've started a village pump thread on how to deal with these types of redirects, not meant to bias this discussion, but because I think there's a broader issue here as some of you have noted. Your thoughts would be appreciated. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I've just discovered that the appearance of emojis are font-dependant; they look different depending on font. Seems to defeat the purpose of not just this, but all emoji redirects doesn't it? Adam9007 (talk) 02:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Okay, the font change only seems to partially change the emoji. Is there some place we can post screenshots of how this looks on different systems for comparison? Adam9007 (talk) 03:33, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I can't give you a shot but I can give an example. The Playboy Bunny image on my Ipad are two yellow skin women wearing what is either a black shirt or one-piece bathing suit and bunny ears. On My PC, however, it is a single black outlined face with black hair and bunny ears. Also on a different RFD for cue sports the image on the Ipad is the black 8 ball whereas on my PC it is 6 plain black circles inside a black triangle.-- (talk) 04:06, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
    • For me, it's a black 8-ball by default on the linked page, but when I set Firefox to override the page's font settings, it becomes the coloured circles in a triangle I see here (I have yet to see it as black circles in a black triangle though, and I'm using a PC. What operating system, browser, and font are you using?). But that's a discussion for that RFD. The "alternate" version of this emoji (looks like the "round faced black creature" you described) also looks nothing like a Space Invaders monster to me (again, when I set Firefox to override the page, it becomes the green alien I see here.) Adam9007 (talk) 13:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Emojipedia shows the different appearances on different platforms. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:38, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
        • No, the font definitely plays a role it their appearance, because the one I linked to looks different still, and changes into the green alien when Firefox sets the fonts. Adam9007 (talk) 14:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
          • UPDATE: I believe the website I linked to uses the Helvetica Neue font, which is what the iPhone 4 uses. It seems to be a non-standard font, hence the emojis look different. I'm wrong; it appears to use the EmojiSymbols font. When I set it to use Arial, they all appear as they do here and elsewhere. I wonder if this font is meant to overcome this issue? Adam9007 (talk) 16:01, 7 July 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)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 14:10, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Hallelujah! (film) which discusses the significance of this song and its performance in the film by McKinney. Ivanvector (talk) 14:46, 29 June 2015 (UTC) Sorry, I just think I should blatantly restate what I said before on this one, because it's a little bit obvious. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:26, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


'Delete as Not a plausible typo. Bazj (talk) 10:05, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep. This is not a typo; viz. ar:إسلام. Gorobay (talk) 16:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per Gorobay, unless Bazj can explain why it's a typo. -- Tavix (talk) 18:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep: Google Translate says its Arabic for Islam. Compassionate727 (talk) 20:47, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

February 29, 1900[edit]

1900 was not a leap year. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Regarget to Leap year bug, where the date is specifically mentioned as a common behaviour with most spreadsheet software.+mt 21:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. While it is not a date on the Gregorian calendar, this date existed for those using the Julian calendar at the time. For example, see the O.S. birth date for Giorgos Seferis. However, nothing encyclopedic happened on that day. +mt 06:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. It may be valid in non-Gregorian systems but the article doesn't consider any 29 Feb except the Gregorian. There's no February 29, 1904, or February 28, 1900. A pointless redir. Bazj (talk) 10:17, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Every fourth year is a leap year, except years that are multiples of 100 (e.g. 1900 which is not a leap year) which are not also multiples of 400 (i.e. 2000 which is a leap year). February 29, 1900 did not exist, in the same way that June 31, 2015 is not a real date. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:43, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Compassionate727 (talk) 00:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Great Revolution[edit]

Since when was the French Revolution called the Great Revolution? It might be my ignorance talking, but I've never heard this title applied to this event. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:29, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Hobsbawm referred to it this way many times in his books, the redirect didn't existed so I decided to created it, I doubt any harm was done. Bertdrunk (talk) 03:45, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Delete. Great Revolution seems a bit ambiguous to me, even if somebody called it that because they felt like calling it that. Compassionate727 (talk) 00:52, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

July 4[edit]


Don't we have a better target to point this towards? If not, this topic or a similar one ought to be created. Leniency and mercy aren't the same thing. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:37, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

@Mr. Guye: The easy way to fix this is to write an article on leniency. Schwede66 00:59, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Lenient also redirects to Mercy -- (talk) 03:27, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is what I call "close enough" (close enough for dictionaries to render them synonyms...). -- Tavix (talk) 18:08, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

June Smith[edit]

"June Smith" was created in 2006 as a stub about a non-notable councilwoman on the North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council, to with she was one of the 60 members elected in 2004. "June Smith" was eventually redirected to North Tyneside, an article on the town, which does not mention the subject (or any other former borough representatives). There is a notable June Smith in the encyclopedia, former Illinois Supreme Court Justice June C. Smith. I would redirect this to either North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council election, 2004 (the only page to mention this "June Smith") or to June C. Smith. bd2412 T 15:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)


Mole-Dagbon is a meta-ethnic group and not synonymous with Oti volta languages. I'm actually starting a page on Mole-Dagbon people —M@sssly 14:08, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

then why the deletion request? Just change it to point to your new article. dab (𒁳) 07:52, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[edit]

The fact that FunnyJunk is create-protected while this redirect exists is unnecessarily astonishing, as the legal case is not solely about FunnyJunk. I don't oppose the salting, as FunnyJunk is unlikely to gain significant notability barring unforeseen controversy. However, if new controversy does occur to justify an article, the redirect might hinder creation and searching of said article (similar to WP:R#DELETE #1 or 2).

Alternatively, one could unsalt FunnyJunk and create it as a redirect identical to this one, but I understand that may not be preferred at this time. SoledadKabocha (talk) 05:41, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Attractions and Landmarks in Auckland[edit]

WP:NOTTRAVEL - TheChampionMan1234 04:41, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

July 3[edit]

Coffin w/Metal Handles[edit]

This redirect was created as a result of the merger of an unsourced one-sentence stub with the target article 8 years ago. Unless sourced information about this interpretation is added to the article, this has to be deleted. The Theosophist (talk) 23:06, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

  • I'm not seeing any evidence that a merge actually took place. Pascal.Tesson redirected it on 22 March 2007, but I'm not seeing a corresponding edit to Medal of Honor. To confirm, I opened up the 24 March 2007 version of Medal of Honor and didn't get a hit for "coffin". -- Tavix (talk) 19:55, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Then a simple delete will suffice -- (talk) 03:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as confusing because it's not mentioned at the targeted article. It's likely a WP:NEOLOGISM. -- Tavix (talk) 19:55, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


These are subpages of Template:DecadesAndYears, which has been deleted 21 months ago. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:54, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

They are redirects. I believe they can all be deleted but it is important to check that they are orphans first. The reason is that sometimes sub-templates are called by name, and the move does not break this, Deleting the sub-templates will, however. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC).
Checked. BTW, if you had left me a note I would probably have {{G7}}'d these myself. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:18, 3 July 2015 (UTC).
  • Comment I don't think it was appropriate to delete {{DecadesAndYears}} as housekeeping, since redirects of this nature are frequently kept at RfD. So instead Keep all of them, and restore {{DecadesAndYears}} , since templates frequently have camelcased names, and should be accessible via camelcased names -- (talk) 05:46, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep all Don't see anything wrong with these titles. Redirects of this nature tend to be kept. --Mr. Guye (talk) 02:33, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Richest man in the world[edit]

Each time the title-holder changes, retarget to new title-holder (currently Bill Gates). The Theosophist (talk) 02:06, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

This should retarget to User:Rich Farmbrough. He his the most richy. (Waits for slap...) Si Trew (talk) 05:31, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Rainbow trout transparent.png. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC).
  • Delete as WP:RFD#D2 confusing. There doesn't seem to be any clear topic about this. You'd expect for example Fortune 100Fortune 500 list of wealthiest men and bints, but WP:NOTNEWS. Si Trew (talk) 12:52, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
    We have some of those lists. Some have been deleted. Sunday Times Rich List, Forbes 400 and The World's Billionaires 2015. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC).
  • Retarget to Bill Gates per nom. Well used redirect and it's entirely reasonable that readers should expect an answer to this question. Since the question is answered with a sourced comment at the retarget it all seems fine to me. Just Chilling (talk) 16:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. The current target answers that inquiry without the necessary maintenance involved when the "title-holder" changes. -- Tavix (talk) 16:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per Tavix, if we redirect it to the current richest person then that requires more maintenance and will open up a can of worms if that title is ever in dispute. Better to redirect to an article which answers the question, as the current target does. Hut 8.5 21:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

July 2[edit]


Not mentioned at targeted article. From the history, it looks like it's a WP:NEOLOGISM acronym for Giggling Like An Idiot. -- Tavix (talk) 23:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps I was thinking of Lallans "gley", like in Rabbie Burns, "the best-laid plans of Meisen men gang aft agley". Si Trew (talk) 05:10, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as nonsense per nom. --Lenticel (talk) 05:02, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Major element[edit]

Requesting Delete because this redirect prevents access to other more common meanings and usage of the term "major element". The text of the current target article Nutrient does not mention "major element", but perhaps it is an indirect reference to what the article calls "the "Big Six" ... the elemental macronutrients for all organisms", but I'm only guessing. Nutrients, however, are only a small subset of all chemicals. Major element has a much wider meaning in chemistry and other sciences where, for example, it often means the chemical elements which are most abundant in any sample of any substance, in contrast to minor elements and trace elements. For example, major element is a concept often used in geology and mineralogy when analysing rocks and minerals. For example, see Compatibility (geochemistry). An external link to definition of major, minor and trace elements is GeoWriter (talk) 20:53, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete as WP:RFD#D2 confusing. In the opposite, we don't have minor element but we do have trace element, which is pretty much a DAB but has a para for its meaning in geochemistry. It's a bit too vague for an article title, I think: Might as well redirect to Hydrogen as the most abundant chemical element in the universe, but that is clearly not what is desired here. Si Trew (talk) 04:11, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete "element" does not mean "nutrient" -- (talk) 04:48, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as vague. --Lenticel (talk) 05:06, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:REDLINK to encourage article creation. I think there's enough info for an article on the Chemistry term. -- Tavix (talk) 13:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Frozen (película de 2013)[edit]

Delete per WP:RFD#D8. Disney's Frozen has no connection with the Spanish language. -- Tavix (talk) 20:14, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Weak delete. We don't usually create foreign-language redirects unless there's a connection between the language and the target. This redirect would be appropriate if there is another movie called Frozen made in 2013 in a Spanish-speaking country, but the 2013 Disney movie Frozen has no connection to Spanish. However, before I make my decision, I'd like to see the discussion play out first. SONIC678|Let’s hang out here 21:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete, Since Sonic wants to see it play out, I'll try to muddy the chilly waters then. Let's assume we wanted to keep the Spanish title here in English, then it could just be Frozen (película), there would be no need to disambiguate with the year. (And we haven't pellicule] nor pellicular, sadly, lovely word).
As it happens, es:Frozen (película) is a redirect to es:Frozen, a DAB that is IW'd to en:Frozen. es:Frozen (película de 2013) is red. So if it does not exist in Spanish WP why should it in English WP? The Spanish DAB says at the top "Frozen (que en inglés significa «congelado»)" (back translating, "which in English means freezing") but does not link it. We do not, for example, have congelado. WP:RFOREIGN, surelí? Si Trew (talk) 04:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Let it go Delete per nom. It's also named "Frozen. El reino del hielo" in Spanish so the retarget is a bit inaccurate--Lenticel (talk) 00:55, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Indigenous languages of Brazil[edit]

Not sure if this redirect is required? I would have thought the page "Languages of Brazil" would be sufficient on it's own. | Nayptatalk opened his mouth at 12:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

  • comment - seems a likely search term. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 13:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep as harmless, unless there is some side that "portuguese" is somehow an invading language, but all seems very WP:NPOV to me. Si Trew (talk) 13:49, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep as "languages of Brazil" would probably be the best target for someone wanting to find that information. We also have Indigenous languages of the Americas#South America, but both targets also contain "other" information, whether it's non-native languages in Brazil or indigenous languages in other S. American countries. I guess it's a matter of which part are you emphasizing? The former target emphasizes "Brazil" whereas the latter target emphasizes "indigenous languages". -- Tavix (talk) 14:54, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per SimonTrew and Tavix. The page this redirect redirects to is probably the best place to find information about indigenous languages spoken in Brazil. SONIC678|Let’s hang out here 21:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep target contains (some of) the topic of this redirect; though a list of languages of Brazil would be good to have. -- (talk) 03:29, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Now You See Me 3[edit]

Now You See Me: The Second Act is not released. How third sequel is coming? (talk) 06:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep as target got the development information for the third film. --Captain Assassin! «TCG» 14:02, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. The target has sourced information about a sequel so this is a valid redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 15:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Comment Is this canvassing? to save my redirects. (talk) 17:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Comment perhaps, but Tavix put it clearly and concisely in the reply. Si Trew (talk) 19:48, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Fantastic Four 2 (2017 film)[edit]

2015 movie not released. No news about sequel (talk) 06:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep as the release date of the sequel is announced and it's not too far (2017). Production may begin this fall. And the target contain development information about the sequel. --Captain Assassin! «TCG» 14:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. The target has sourced information about a sequel so this is a valid redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 15:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Comment perhaps, but Tavix put it clearly and concisely in the reply. Si Trew (talk) 19:48, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

TRON 3[edit]

The sequel is cancelled. (talk) 06:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep the information about the cancelled sequel is in the article indicated -- (talk) 06:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, as 67.70 says. It's not actually expressed this way in the article proper, but in reference 167, and the article reliably says its working title was tr3n, which also redirects there. So a bit weird but harmless, someone searching for this will find what they are looking for. Perhaps refine both to section Tron: Legacy#Halted sequel? Si Trew (talk) 07:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Comment. TRON3, Tron III, Tron III are all red, but Tron 3 also → Tron: Legacy. Perhaps its legacy is that it seems to break the rdcheck filter. Si Trew (talk) 08:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep as the target got detailed information about the recently cancelled sequel. But who knows if they start the production in near future. --Captain Assassin! «TCG» 14:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. The target has sourced information about the sequel so this is a valid redirect. The fact that the sequel is cancelled is irrelevant here. -- Tavix (talk) 15:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, it should be refined. -- Tavix (talk) 13:42, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Jurassic Park VI[edit]

delete unconfirmed title (talk) 06:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep the targeted article contains information on the sequels to the fifth film -- (talk) 06:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Keep. No it don't. No mention of Jurassic Park VI nor Jurassic Park 6 in any part of the article. Nevertheless, this is harmless. Without prejudice, tagging as {{R to section}} and amending the above listing, to the unspeakable bounty of human knowledge. Si Trew (talk) 09:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Comment. Am I being a bit queer, but I was wondering what past sequels would be? A sequel, by definition, comes after not before, so "future" is redundant. Anyway, that's irrelevant for our purposes. Just had an axe to grind. Si Trew (talk) 10:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep as the target got information about the sixth Jurassic Park film and readers may search the sequel by this title. --Captain Assassin! «TCG» 14:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. The target has sourced information about a sequel so this is a valid redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 15:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. If Jurassic World (the 4th film in the Jurassic Park film series) is going to have a sequel, it will be the 5th film in the series. I see no information in the target article for more than one sequel. This redirect is too incorrect at the present time. Steel1943 (talk) 19:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
So you're basically going WP:RFD#D5, @Steel1943:? Si Trew (talk) 19:54, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Most of that section uses sequel in the plural, as in "more than one sequel." -- Tavix (talk) 20:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Well I know what a bloody plural is, Mr. Patronising (smiling)! Future sequel is red. It's still the oxymoron that you can't quite have a past sequel, so that is redundant (or at least a box set) but since these fellows lived in the past and now are projected into the future, we need something like the past historic future tense, which we do not have in English, the nearest we can get for the verb go is "I should have been ought to have been going", we do it all with adjunctives rather than sticking on suffixes like a proper language (Hungarian can do it in one word, for example).
I mean the Jurrasic era was a long time ago, and succeeded by the Modern era or something according to my Boy's Big Book of Dinosaurs and the Museum of Natural History. Since Modern Era now means the middle ages, we are a bit short on terms for the geological eras for digging up dinosaurs. Cretaceous era don't exist either, and what would we do without the rhinocerous? from Ancient Greek Rhino, meaning "nose", and cerous head. (From which we derive Cerebral and unfortunately Celebrity, BRING BACK HANGING I SAY. Kinda Late Latin, not very Greek, really. And the plot thins. Si Trew (talk) 05:52, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Although living in any major city is a form of capital punishment to me. I am lucky, I haven't money, but live where I can see trees and grass and flowers, picked some new English roses that I planted last year and gave one to my neighbours. Who wants to live in a city when you can get all this for free? George Orwell's roses are still blooming in the village where he used to live. His essay on it would touch your heart, cos he had witnessed the death of his wife Eileen Blair. Orwell said, who ever plants a walnut, if you plant a walnut, you are planting it for your grandchildren, and who gives a damn about their grandchildren? Well I have to advise Orwell, he is wrong. His roses are blooming in Wallington, Hertfordshire and that is where I kinda grew up. So as he said in A Good Word for the Vicar of Bray. (Vicar of Bray is rather a contemtuous expression, roughly, hypocrite). A rose, he said would last a hundred years, and it has done a good sixty so far. Si Trew (talk) 06:20, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Declaration of interest. I went to the inaugural meeting of the Orwell Society in Letchworth at the Spirella, which we don't seem to have for the one in Letchwoth, but they moved out of central London for the second world war and actually they did some secret work on the Bletchley Park stuff, cos it was handy and they had the machines they could turn around and make bombes instead of corsets. Most of the early bombes came from Spirella in Letchworth.[CodeBook 1] but I did as Orwell would want, my feet literally carried me out of that nonsense, as it was just a political debate and nothing to do with Orwell at all. I have the map reading for it, hulye vagyok de nem nagyon hulye. (I'm stupid, but not that stupid.)
  1. ^ Singh, Simon. The Code Book. 

Jurassic World 2[edit]

unconfirmed (talk) 06:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep the targeted article contains information on the sequels to Jurassic World -- (talk) 06:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • '"Delete'Struck Si Trew (talk) 19:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC).it doesn't contain anything saying "Jurassic World 2" (or "Jurrasic World II"), therefore is WP:CRYSTAL and WP:RFD#D5 nonsense.
Comment. With my procedural head on, I have amended the listing here to include the section to which the R goes (Twinkle doesn't do that, we really should get that sorted, where to list for Twinkle amendments?), without prejudice, and added {{R to section}} to it, but it's not in any part of the article. Actually the redirect is not tagged with the usual so I should probably do that... please await calamity here. Si Trew (talk) 07:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
The section does address developments from Jurassic World, hence a viable search term would be "Jurassic World 2" -- (talk) 08:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Comment. I think I got away with it. Si Trew (talk) 07:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep as target got the detailed information about the sequel, and film's title is Jurassic World so readers may search by typing Jurassic World 2 to read about the sequel. --Captain Assassin! «TCG» 14:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. The target has sourced information about a sequel so this is a valid redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 15:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Information about this subject is mentioned at its current target. Steel1943 (talk) 19:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Sample Chess Game[edit]

Delete as misleading. The target article doesn't contain a "sample chess game" so this redirect can do nothing but disappoint. -- Tavix (talk) 03:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Second thoughts: Nobody I presume wants a list of chess notation e4 e5 kxb N and so on, as what I assume is supposed to be a kind of redirect to a beginner's guide to chess. Perhaps {{WikiProject Chess}} can advise? But Chess#Movement is possible to refine the target, and we have {{Chess diagram}} and {{Chess diagram small}} (apparently now in Lua as Module:Chessboard). On the other hand, we don't have Sample Monopoly Game, Sample Scrabble Game and so on (we don't have Sample chess game for that matter), so I can see this would lead to a combinatorial explosion. Si Trew (talk) 05:22, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

July 1[edit]

Contradiction in terms[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was procedural close. This is a move request. You're probably right, but use WP:RM. --BDD (talk) 16:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

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)
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.

Spaceballs 3[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. --BDD (talk) 16:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

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" [4]; 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)
Oh, I see. Ok, withdrawn. --BDD (talk) 16:07, 2 July 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.

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)
  • DAB it per Tavix' draft. Don't seem dumb to me at all. I was thinking also it is an aphrasis for protector as in e.g. Toe-tectors, steel toecapped boots, and also little nylon ones used in cleanrooms but that is hard to reference (easy to search with Your Favourite Search Engine but none seems very RS). (I'm not suggesting Cromwell was Lord Tector, although he was Lord Protector: but I think it is a fairly common aphrasis.) There again, we are WP:NOTDIC. Sector and Tensor also sprang to my mind, but that is just because I am weird. Wiktionary has never heard of it. Si Trew (talk) 04:42, 3 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 (it was created in November 2010). -- 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) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonTrew (talkcontribs)
  • Keep. It is a castle, not a pagoda. See [5], where “城(日本)” means ‘castle (Japanese)’. Gorobay (talk) 19:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per Gorobay. If you go [6], you will see “城(日本)” translates to "castle." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonic678 (talkcontribs) 20:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment According to U+01F3EF is "JAPANESE CASTLE" ( and U+01F3EE is "izakaya lantern". However I am strongly against putting emoji into Wikipedia at all as it is confusing, especially because not everyone (myself included) has a browser capable of displaying them.
As a general point of order, I regard emoji as a foreign language (I don't mean Japanese, but its own language) and thus WP:NOTENGLISH, WP:RFOREIGN. We don't have , for example. (Years ago I learned katakana and hiragana but didn't do so well on kanji.) Si Trew (talk) 04:32, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - unlike some other recent emoji redirect discussions, this one seems to render fairly similarly on all systems ([7]) and is intended to depict what it currently targets. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:58, 6 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)
I've been wondering that, but I guess some smartphone browsers (Android?) pop them up for you? Si Trew (talk) 05:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Comment: We do have X rating. We don't have 18 rating. Si Trew (talk) 04:51, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Retarget to 18 certificate. Found it in the end. Si Trew (talk) 04:59, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to motion picture rating system which explains the broad concept of age-based film restrictions, then lists in detail the restrictions in a wide variety of countries. This emoji renders as described for me but it seems it may not render at all for Android users. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:06, 6 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)
But not particularly useful. Compassionate727 (talk) 01:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, but not harmful. The coin toss is really WP:SURPRISE (which WP:RFD#D2 and WP:RFD#D5 overlap): if someone searching for Snyder Avenue did so, would they be surprised to come up with that station when they were looking for another Snyder Avenue (or Snider Avenue or Cinder Avenue) or what? How more Snide or Snyde would they be? There are plenty of stations named after the roads they are on, and vice versa, Station Road perhaps being the base case.
many Strand (station)s are not actually on the strand or beach, as the trains tend to fall into the briny (that's why Joseph Bazalgette built the Victoria Embankment, so Strand, London is not actually by the riverside now, but it stops em falling off into the Thames, and lets the Circle Line (London Underground) get from Hammersmith to Aldgate, but that's another story...) Si Trew (talk) 08:15, 2 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)

Delete with Tavix: The open letter should be Returned to sender, but that'S the USPS for you. (WP:RFD#D5). (Havge you noticed, by the way, the US post delivers the mail but the Royal Mail delivers the post.) Si Trew (talk) 10:47, 2 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)
  • Keep all. Old and harmless, like me. Si Trew (talk) 10:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep all. Old and harmless, like Si Trew. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:09, 6 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)
Tavix, are you suggesting keep then as useless but ancient? I don't mind if you do, I'm knocking mine down to a weak delete. But I do think it a little harmful in that it actually hinders those searching, but that kind of thing is always purely guesswork (we can't know what the search engine would do without it, that's kinda very Alice in Wonderland "The quickest way to explain it is to do it".) Si Trew (talk) 04:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. More a justification for why it was put in, it was part of the {{WP:CATH|Catholic Encyclopedia listing]]. There may be redirects from clone Wikipedia clones. JASpencer (talk) 12:33, 3 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)
  • Disambiguate - If there's two topics it could refer to, seems like the most obvious choice. —ajf (talk) 23:10, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 July 7#Disbeliever

Pain in the arse[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 soft redirect, like its American counterpart. --BDD (talk) 14:05, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

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)
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.

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.


The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus, default to keep all. Deryck C. 20:03, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

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. The article at Kafir doesn't xref to this DAB in its hatnote, at the moment. Si Trew (talk) 20:43, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
No, nothing else there would be referred to as "non-Muslim", even though many things there aren't. I'm sure the wildcat, for example, doesn't give theology much thought. (List of things which are not Muslim, anyone?) --BDD (talk) 16:21, 2 July 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.

Social affairs[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 July 7#Social affairs

Pain in the ass[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 soft redirect to Wiktionary. We're not really any closer to consensus than when this was relisted, so of the remaining two options, I'm choosing the alternative to deletion. --BDD (talk) 13:49, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

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)
(clarify: "Right" is offtopic) As for including the slang/idiom in the lead, we shouldn't per WP:SLANG, doubly so due to WP:MEDRS. Widefox; talk 10:54, 4 July 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 the status quo is broken - we have no navigation to the wikt entry which is the current primary meaning. Suggest pragmatic soft redirect for both ENGVARs. Widefox; talk 10:54, 4 July 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 delete. There's some disagreement about where to redirect, some consensus for deletion, and search results should allow access to both discussed retargeting options. --BDD (talk) 13:45, 7 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)
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.

Integrity (mathematics)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus, default to delete. That's not a result I generally use, but in this case, there's not consensus to keep as is, the term "integrity" isn't used at either Integer or Integral domain, and there are no mathematical uses listed at Integrity (disambiguation). --BDD (talk) 13:38, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

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)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.


The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep as {{R from CamelCase}}. There is some disagreement as to whether this is the most appropriate primary topic for the title, but there's no consensus to change it for now. Deryck C. 19:57, 7 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)
Watch out for that left bower. You could try WikiProject Royalty and Nobility or WikiProject British Royalty. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:53, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

@BDD: , @Ivanvector: I see that you to asked for a “Peerage expert”. I claim to be one but the above discussion is a bit TL;DR. Can you pose the question again? I think I figured tht it has to do with Marquesses...--The Theosophist (talk) 21:02, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

There are some other questions, but the main one I was getting at: Does it make sense for Lord Aberdeen and Earl Aberdeen to Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair, when the latter is a newer style? Surely Earl of Aberdeen and Marquess of Aberdeen can't be synonymous. --BDD (talk) 15:38, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
@BDD: The 7th Earl of Aberdeen was created 1st Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair. This way, you can say that the two titles merged, as they were held by the same person. Male descendants of the first Marquess still live today, thus the two titles are still united (the current holder is the 13th Earl and 7th Marquess, for your information). It is the established policy every time this has happened, to redirect the old title to the new one (see, for example, Earl of Kildare and Earl of Rutland), as the two titles are held by the same person and family. In fact, the new title can be considered the continuation of family legacy or even an upgrade (which is not the actual case, as both titles exist independently), as the head of the family is now a Marquess, so you cannot say that they are two completely different subjects: the article deals with the title of the family at any given time and has the current one as its title. After all, they hold the old title too. Had it changed hands on the creation of the new (or had the new been created for a second son) there would most likely be separate articles. --The Theosophist (talk) 21:37, 4 July 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 retarget to Unavailability. --BDD (talk) 13:26, 7 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)
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.