Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

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

Administrator instructions

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

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

Contents

Before listing a redirect for discussion[edit]

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

The guiding principles of RfD[edit]

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

When should we delete a redirect?[edit]

Shortcut:

The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:

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

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

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

Shortcut:

Reasons for deleting[edit]

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

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

Reasons for not deleting[edit]

However, avoid deleting such redirects if:

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

Neutrality of redirects[edit]

Shortcut:

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

Non-neutral redirects are commonly created for three reasons:

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

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

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

Closing notes[edit]

Details at: Administrator instructions for RfD.

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

How to list a redirect for discussion[edit]

Shortcut:
I.
Tag the redirect.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Current list[edit]

September 1[edit]

Max Nicastro[edit]

see below -- Tavix (talk) 00:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Nick Paul[edit]

See below -- Tavix (talk) 00:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Alex Guptill[edit]

see below -- Tavix (talk) 00:28, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Jeff Genovy[edit]

see below -- Tavix (talk) 00:27, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Brandon Archibald[edit]

see below -- Tavix (talk) 00:27, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Spencer Martin (ice hockey)[edit]

see below -- Tavix (talk) 00:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

J. D. Corbin[edit]

see below -- Tavix (talk) 00:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

John Hayden (ice hockey)[edit]

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

August 31[edit]

(alternate (leaf)[edit]

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

  • Delete as confusing. What type of "alternate" is grouped as "leaf" exactly? --Lenticel (talk) 00:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

2015 explosion[edit]

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

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

  • Comment the 2015 Tianjin explosions would probably be the most notable explosion so far this year. I'm actually surprised we don't have an article for explosions by year/decade, seeing as we have Category:Explosions in 2015. I might look into creating one, but until then, I'm fine with whatever consensus develops. -- Tavix (talk) 21:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Jax's second link is kind of what I was looking for, although it is nowhere near complete. -- Tavix (talk) 23:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

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

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

  • Delete I cannot possibly imagine this to be a redirect that is used. It turns out that I am quite right about that. My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 21:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as implausibly necessary. BMK (talk) 21:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

NHL Draft redirects[edit]

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

  • Delete all per nom. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:35, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. These are proper and useful redirects for NHL drafted, but otherwise nn ice hockey players. Subjects are unlikely to warrant stand-alone articles under GNG or NHOCKEY, therefore meets the purpose of a redirect as sub-topics or other topics which are described or listed within a wider article. Dolovis (talk) 18:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
How are we to guess what someone would be looking for when searching with these terms? Every list that contains a player's name would show up in search results so if anything, these redirects are hindering search, which is the main premise of WP:XY. -- Tavix (talk) 20:35, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete all per nom, per WP:XY and per the numerous previous times redirects of this type have been deleted. Note also there will be many more pointing to single-season team articles, to team draft lists, to award articles for age groups as young as 15-17, etc... Resolute 19:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete all per XY, and as Resolute states, for the many, many times such implausible redirects that Dolovis has created has been deleted at RfD. Ravenswing 22:53, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Untitled Mike Tyson Biopic[edit]

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

Oscar winner, Martin Scorsese[edit]

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

  • Delete per WP:HONORIFICS. He is not known by this name in reliable sources, and it's unlikely that anyone would use this for searching. The note was removed. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

The Silence (2014 film)[edit]

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

  • Delete - insufficient history to warrant keeping as a redirect to the revised production date. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 00:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Untitled ( Hodgy Beats EP)[edit]

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

  • Weak keep - this one appears to be an actual EP called "untitled"; the typo is unambiguous and probably harmless. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:56, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Untitled (Rebecca Black album)[edit]

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

  • Delete - aww, I just had my generic untitled redirect template G7'd. Redirects from "untitled" pages to things which have titles are unhelpful. Redirects from "untitled" pages to artists are a form of nonsense. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Other Idols in Tirumala[edit]

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

  • Delete per nom. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Other Characters in Back to the Future[edit]

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

  • Delete per nom. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per other editors. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:55, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. It's a relic of an old page move, as the history shows. The focus of the separate list that exists now at List of Back to the Future characters was originally only minor characters, with "Other Characters in Back to the Future" as its original title; it was expanded to list all characters a few years later. I'd question this redirect's value as a search term (really the only criteria by which we should be judging it; redirects are just a phrase and have no substance from which anything can be "excluded"), though someone obviously created it in the first place. postdlf (talk) 23:56, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Other Blackadder family residences[edit]

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

  • Delete per nom. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:00, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

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

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

  • Keep as appears a plausible synonym. Rubbish computer 12:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:XNR. While plausible, this particular typo makes it into a cross-namespace redirect out of article space. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 12:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

About watch[edit]

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

About world war 1[edit]

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

  • Delete per nom. Rubbish computer 12:35, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Note: I have boldly merged these discussions. -- Tavix (talk) 16:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

About babies[edit]

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

  • Delete per nom. Rubbish computer 12:35, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - abouts are incapable of producing offspring. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Famous web search engine[edit]

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

  • Delete as there appears to be no suitable target due to its vagueness. Rubbish computer 12:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete: inherently non-neutral (WP:PEACOCK). QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Not mentioned where? How about in this news source? This book? 23 hits at Google Scholar? FWSE is a tongue-in-cheek nickname for Google Search that was popular for a couple of years when Google lawyers were trying to discourage people from using Google as a verb. If you wrote "I Googled this" in a news article, you would get a letter from their trademark lawyers telling you that you must never do that again. FWSE became a way to tell your readers what you did, without getting cease-and-desist letters and while thumbing your nose at them. Also, the redirect exists in part because of the dab page FWSE. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:01, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per WhatamIdoing. This is one of those cases where a painfully promotional name is picked up by reliable sources, and as such it's useful here and points where it should. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per WhatamIdoing and Ivanvector. This term is used extensively within New Scientist Magazine Feedback pages Pahazzard (talk) 20:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Reading murder books tryin' to stay hip[edit]

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

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

Wikipedia:Wikipedias in other languages[edit]

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

  • Delete due to its vagueness and there appearing to be no suitable target. Rubbish computer 12:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

August 30[edit]

Other Wikipedias[edit]

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

  • Delete per nom. It's a confusing circular reference to its target article. (However, very weak target to Wikipedia:Wikipedias in other languages, but I may just end up nominating that essay for WP:MFD for lack of helpfulness, or renaming it since I do not think the current scope of the essay meets the title. That, and it would be a WP:CNR, which are usually unhelpful due to misleading readers, such as this one probably would if it were a CNR.) (Revoked this statement since the situation of this page has changed since I made this statement. Steel1943 (talk) 00:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)) Steel1943 (talk) 23:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as vague. --Lenticel (talk) 00:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Rubbish computer 12:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Election 08[edit]

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

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

Other 2004 Republican Presidential Candidates[edit]

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

  • Retarget to Republican Party presidential primaries, 2004 which has the information on the handful of people who contested the Republican presidential nomination against a sitting president. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:36, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -©2015 Compassionate727(Talk)(Contributions) 16:55, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Rubbish computer 17:44, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget per Ívanvector. "Other candidates" seems a likely search term, WP:RFD:K2. In (horse) racing terms, "others", means all those not in the place bet, so one has first, second and others, or first second, third and others (depending on the size of the field). You can count me as one of the others). Si Trew (talk) 22:55, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget per Ivanvector. Given 2004 saw a single successful Republican candidate for president it is likely that people will search for who any other candidates were. Thryduulf (talk) 01:12, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget per Ivanvector. Whatever the reader is looking for is going to be there. WilyD 09:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • RTPIV All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC).
  • That has to be the laziest !vote I've ever seen. -- Tavix (talk) 18:22, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak retarget to Republican Party presidential primaries, 2004. I'm not thoroughly convinced that deleting this would do more harm than good, as the problem with "other" redirects does apply here too. But it does seem fairly plausible that a reader using this term would be looking for candidates "other" than the obvious one—cf. also-ran. Also, it does date to early 2004. I might look more harshly on it if someone created it last week. --BDD (talk) 15:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 17:34, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Also, to add more confusion: 2004 Republican Presidential Candidates and 2004 Republican presidential candidates do not exist (the nominated redirect without the word "Other" in its title.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:18, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

August 29[edit]

Team Sarah[edit]

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

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

Palintology[edit]

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

  • Delete per nom. --Lenticel (talk) 00:37, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Rubbish computer 13:16, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - not a plausible misspelling. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:12, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Super Weak Retarget to Paleontology, torn about its plausibility, probably not likely (hence the super weak).Godsy(TALKCONT) 08:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

逻辑[edit]

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

College logic[edit]

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

  • Delete college course names should not redirect to topic articles -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Rubbish computer 13:35, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • delete as vague. There's a lot of subjects taught within college logic courses --Lenticel (talk) 00:02, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Islamick[edit]

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

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

Motor City (2014 film)[edit]

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

  • Delete for the redirect that mentions a year, weak keep for the other. IMDb lists a film of this name as "In Development" [1]. Since I don't have IMDbpro access, I can't see any details, but assuming good faith on the part of the creator, I assume the target is a reasonable one, and the film has simply been delayed. So, the redirect with a year is clearly invalid at this point, but either of WP:R#K3 (a stretch, but not impossible) or WP:R#K7 could apply to the other redirect. Xtifr tälk 09:02, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
That's not how it works. You're just assuming a connection and we shouldn't do that. Unless there is sourced material in the article on that film, it'll be confusing and/or speculatory. Anyone looking for information on the film will be disappointed because nothing exists there and it's a WP:CRYSTAL violation. When/if this film starts production, it'd be super easy to write an article on the subject, so let's wait until then. See also: WP:REDLINK. -- Tavix (talk) 13:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Ayy lmao[edit]

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

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

Challenge (internet)[edit]

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

  • Comment I would like to make a new section in List of Internet phenomena called "challenges" and populate that section with the category mentioned above. However, that list is getting pretty massive (approaching 200kB). This might be better suited for that talk page, but that page should either a) be split into a few different lists or b) purged of the "non-notable" items and only contain items that have articles. -- Tavix (talk) 20:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to List of Internet phenomena#Challenges. I went ahead and boldly implemented my above comment (b). -- Tavix (talk) 23:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget per Tavix. Rubbish computer 13:38, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Post-2009 Pacific hurricane seasons[edit]

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


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

  • Support deleting all of them. It was a temporary solution. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 18:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete all - No longer needed.Jason Rees (talk) 19:13, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete – What the Hink and JR said. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

On-line drama addiction[edit]

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

  • Delete since I can name several social media sites that meet this criteria. Steel1943 (talk) 01:31, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as there appears to be no suitable target. Rubbish computer 21:54, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. I was thinking if this can actually be made into an article --Lenticel (talk) 00:21, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

To anarchize[edit]

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

  • retarget to Anarchy. This seems to be its infinitive verb form --Lenticel (talk) 00:44, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Anarchy since we've had people advocating to anarchize things for over a century before the concept of internet trolling was even invented. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 12:58, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget per above. Rubbish computer 21:52, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Anarchism. I'm alright with anarchy as well, but the former is seems to describe actually "Anarchizing", as opposed the latter which seems to describe more the word itself.Godsy(TALKCONT) 08:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Alternative versions of Thor[edit]

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

  • Strong Delete WP:BIAS Wikipedia is not the Marvel Encyclopedia. Thor is not a Marvel invention. This is clearly prejudiced against non-Marvel topics -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per 67. Rubbish computer 21:52, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per anon --Lenticel (talk) 00:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. I indirectly created the redirect when I originally moved the page from Alternative versions of Thor to Alternative versions of Thor (Marvel Comics). However, the idea behind the page move is line with the rationales listed above. The title needed to be disambiguated to clearly define the scope of the article, the Marvel Comics Thor. I agree with @BDD: for the need of a Thor in popular culture article, to list the other incarnations of Thor.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:52, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Thor in other media[edit]

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

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

Women in law[edit]

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

  • Delete per WP:REDLINK as there appears to be no suitable target. Rubbish computer 17:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • What was the RfD? --Lquilter (talk) 03:16, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete WP:Systematic bias. This is not the US Wikipedia. Women exist outside the United States. Law exists outside the United States. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:55, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete to encourage article creation --Lenticel (talk) 14:17, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete noticed this because it was mentioned at Lady lawyer. I was thinking the same thing as Rubbish computer above.Godsy(TALKCONT) 07:52, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

The Rock Poster Art of Todd Slater[edit]

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

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

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

Other Government Agency[edit]

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

Kobato[edit]

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

  • Huh. Do we know what the station was named after? --BDD (talk) 04:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment there are three topics, the anime, the manga, the station, and wiktionary wikt:鸊/wikt:鵻 (wikt:こばと/wikt:kobato); Two just happen to be covered by a single article, because of weird WPANIME conventions on not making articles, even though the rest of Wikipedia have separate articles for comics and TV cartoons. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:51, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - While having a disambiguation page that separates out the anime, the manga, and the station... that seems right to me. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:30, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
CoffeeWithMarkets, could you clarify? Do you want to keep the redirect as is and have a Kobato (disambiguation) created, or would you prefer to disambiguate the base title? --BDD (talk) 13:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 13:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Administrative city[edit]

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

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

Aaaaaa[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Kenneth Peter Townend (1921–2001)[edit]

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

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

IPad Pro[edit]

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

Dark Invasion[edit]

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

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

  • Delete - The book Dark Invasion is notable enough to have an article of its own. The film is just a project right now and falls under WP:CRYSTAL.
Making a note here that the above comment was added by me. Since there's now an article for the book, I'm fine with a Retarget. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:21, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep both as I've added content in the book article and redirect the film article to that. --Captain Assassin! «TCG» 02:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget per Captain Assassin! Rubbish computer 11:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

August 28[edit]

M. Night Shyamalanadingdong[edit]

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

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

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

  • Speedy delete per WP:G10, although this is probably already about to take place. Rubbish computer 17:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Hitman for Hire[edit]

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

I could get behind that. I had also considered bounty hunter but wasn't sure if it was a well enough established term. -- Tavix (talk) 05:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete all per above and as Hitman for Hire's capitalisation suggests it can only refer to a specific film, rather than contract killing in general. Rubbish computer 17:51, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Title case capitalization frequently appear as redirects though, since the world at large uses title case, while Wikipedia uses sentence case. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:52, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete all per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:30, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

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

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

  • Delete per nom. Rubbish computer 17:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as housekeeping, as such films do not exist. Rubbish computer 17:48, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

2017 Stanley Cup playoffs[edit]

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

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

Pier-Olivier Pelletier[edit]

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

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

Pennsylvanien[edit]

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

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

Star Trek Expanded Universe[edit]

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

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

Other storylines in Star Trek[edit]

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

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

Other use[edit]

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

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

New army sword[edit]

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

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

How the universe was created[edit]

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

  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ. --Rubbish computer 12:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Compassionate727 (talk) 13:51, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. WP:NOTFAQ applies to articles, not redirects. While it is not the most common practice, redirecting a common question with an unambiguous answer to the article that contains that answer meets none of the deletion criteria for redirects and does aid searches and prove useful to someone. Remember that redirects are WP:CHEAP. This particular answer may not be unambiguous, but it redirects to a general article that covers all possible answers, which is appropriate. ~ RobTalk 14:50, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep as a reasonable redirect. The redirect itself is not an FAQ . -- Whpq (talk) 17:30, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep as being a plausible search term. A redirect is not a FAQ, WP:NOTFAQ does not apply to redirects, and none of the reasons for deleting redirects listed under WP:RFD#DELETE applies here.  --Lambiam 20:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Double keep. Even if NOTFAQ did apply to redirects, "How the universe was created" is a (nontechnical) synonym for "cosmogony", and is distinct from the question "How was the universe created?" FourViolas (talk) 00:27, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Stong Delete per WP:NOTFAQ. That aside, this term addresses "any model concerning the coming-into-existence", not the "how" specifically.Godsy(TALKCONT) 00:49, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ, which, along with any other statement on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, can be applied to Wikipedia as a whole, including redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep It looks like the target article is about how the universe was created. Theories, at least. --BDD (talk) 22:20, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 16:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Chronology of the universe, which describes in as much detail as we would be likely to provide here how the universe was created according to prevailing scientific consensus. The redirect isn't study of how the universe was created. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect to The Big Bang. Malamockq (talk) 22:58, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:XY since I don't believe there to be one target suitable for this query. -- Tavix (talk) 23:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:CHEAP. WP:NOTFAQ seems to me to refer to content, not titles. It says, "Wikipedia should not list Frequently Asked Questions." This is a potential (if somewhat unlikely) search term, not a list. And I see no other arguments raised, so I have to default to WP:CHEAP. I do agree that The Big Bang is a reasonable alternative target, but Cosmogeny seems broader, and indeed, lists BBT right up at the top of the article as the prevailing Cosmogeny today. On the other hand, Chronology of the universe only touches on the topic, and seems far less appropriate to me. Xtifr tälk 09:43, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
I prefer to retarget since cosmogony describes the study of the origin of the universe, but does not describe the universe's formation (as we currently know it) except with a link to Big Bang, so it does not address "how the universe was created". It would work fine if we retargeted to Big Bang also. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 11:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. This seems to be a reasonably plausible search term given that the word cosmogony is not that common. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:32, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

How radiation affects Perceived temperature[edit]

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

  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ. --Rubbish computer 12:32, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Compassionate727 (talk) 13:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. WP:NOTFAQ applies to articles, not redirects. While it is not the most common practice, redirecting a common question with an unambiguous answer to the article that contains that answer meets none of the deletion criteria for redirects and does aid searches and prove useful to someone. Remember that redirects are WP:CHEAP. ~ RobTalk 14:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep plausible search terminology. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:23, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ, which, along with any other statement on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, can be applied to Wikipedia as a whole, including redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Please read NOTFAQ before invoking it. It's quite clear that it only applies to how articles are laid out. The claim that it can be applied to "Wikipedia as a whole, including redirects" is untrue. WilyD 16:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I wouldn't have "invoked" it if I didn't read it. My comment about "Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not" referring to Wikipedia "as a whole" still stands. Anyone can debate the interpretation of that page in discussion (as apparently, we are doing here). If you want to invalidate any part of WP:WWIN to not apply to specific aspects of Wikipedia, feel free to start a discussion on its talk page. However, it looks like the discussion about specifically restricting WP:NOTFAQ from applying to redirects (on WP:WWIN's talk page) is approaching a WP:SNOW oppose close. Steel1943 (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
If you had read NOTFAQ, you would have discovered that it's unambiguously inapplicable here, in a way that no one who had read it could miss. There's no need to apply a footnote to it say it doesn't apply to redirects, any more than there's a need to apply a footnote to WP:CSD#G12 saying it doesn't apply to redirects. The substance of what it says makes it entirely unambiguous that it cannot. So, again, I implore you to read NOTFAQ before invoking it. WilyD 09:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ and Steel1943. Not elaborating on each individually as so many have been listed of this type on this date.Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
    • This redirect is not a question, it's merely a rephrasing of the title. How could NOTFAQ possibly be relevant to something that isn't a question, and doesn't involve questions in any way? WilyD 16:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Strange capitalization, but since the target article has a descriptive name, we should be generous with redirects to it. --BDD (talk) 22:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 16:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps "radiation" is vague in the phrasing of the redirect, but that's only matching the article title. --BDD (talk) 20:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Absolutely, but that doesn't affect my argument. It's possible that there are heating effects from other forms of radiation (in fact I think that we have articles about some of them) but this target does not address them. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
I think that might be a problem with the article though. Maybe an WP:AFD is in order? WP:NOT-FOR-GETTING-OTHER-PEOPLE-TO-DO-YOUR-HOMEWORK... -- Tavix (talk) 23:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep as this does not appear to be phrased as a question. Rubbish computer 17:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  •  Delete. Without the odd capitalization, I might argue to keep as a plausible search term if I could convince myself the target was a reasonable one. But as it is, the question doesn't arise. Xtifr tälk 09:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

How internet use affects the human brain[edit]

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

  • Keep because this does not appear to be posed as a question, but rather as a statement. If it was How does internet use affect the human brain?, I would say Delete per WP:NOTFAQ. --Rubbish computer 12:43, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep: seems plausible enough. Compassionate727 (talk) 13:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete: An interrogative pronoun, phrase, or word should not be used in a title in a scholarly encyclopedia, IMHO. Perhaps they are permissible in a children's encyclopedia or simple-english work when the actual subject matter may be less than obvious to the audience. Beyond that it seems those titles only convey that the authors aren't sure of their capability to pick a proper subject matter. These redirected titles should be deleted, they are remnants of article history, not intentional alternate titles. Kbrose (talk) 14:33, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. WP:NOTFAQ applies to articles, not redirects. While it is not the most common practice, redirecting a common question with an unambiguous answer to the article that contains that answer meets none of the deletion criteria for redirects and does aid searches and prove useful to someone. Remember that redirects are WP:CHEAP. ~ RobTalk 14:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ, which, along with any other statement on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, can be applied to Wikipedia as a whole, including redirects. (If a question mark was added to the end of this redirect, it would be a question missing the word "do". It could have been possible that the question mark was unintentionally omitted from this title.) Steel1943 (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Please read NOTFAQ before invoking it. It's quite clear that it only applies to how articles are laid out. The claim that it can be applied to "Wikipedia as a whole, including redirects" is untrue. If it was a different redirect, it might be a question, but it's this redirect, and it's not a question, making the invocation of the unrelated NOTFAQ doubly bizarre. Please familiarise yourself with policies before invoking them, your failure to do makes discussion of this redirect difficult. WilyD 16:29, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I wouldn't have "invoked" it if I didn't read it. My comment about "Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not" referring to Wikipedia "as a whole" still stands. Anyone can debate the interpretation of that page in discussion (as apparently, we are doing here). If you want to invalidate any part of WP:WWIN to not apply to specific aspects of Wikipedia, feel free to start a discussion on its talk page. However, it looks like the discussion about specifically restricting WP:NOTFAQ from applying to redirects (on WP:WWIN's talk page) is approaching a WP:SNOW oppose close. Steel1943 (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
If you had read NOTFAQ, you would have discovered that it's unambiguously inapplicable here, in a way that no one who had read it could miss. There's no need to apply a footnote to it say it doesn't apply to redirects, any more than there's a need to apply a footnote to WP:CSD#G12 saying it doesn't apply to redirects. The substance of what it says makes it entirely unambiguous that it cannot. So, again, I implore you to read NOTFAQ before invoking it. WilyD 09:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ and Steel1943. Not elaborating on each individually as so many have been listed of this type on this date.Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, aids searching which is what redirects are for. Also harmless and cheap. Siuenti (talk) 12:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep That's what the target article is about. I don't see a problem. --BDD (talk) 21:44, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 16:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - as opposed to my rationale in the discussion below, narrowing the scope of the query from "humans" to "the human brain" makes this target fairly accurate. Not a slam dunk, but plausible. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Actually, I think a similar argument applies here. The way it's phrased seem to me to imply physiological, rather than psychological, effects. Or at least to be somewhat ambiguous and potentially misleading. But I'm not entirely sure, which is why I'm abstaining. Xtifr tälk 10:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

How internet use affects humans[edit]

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

  • Keep - unambiguously directs the reader to the content they're looking for. Since WP:NOTFAQ is about article content, and redirects have no content, I can only assume it's linking was an egregious error, rather than a deliberate attempt to mislead. WilyD 12:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep as this appears to be a statement rather than a question; if it said How does internet use affect humans? I would propose deletion per WP:NOTFAQ. --Rubbish computer 13:47, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep as plausible. Compassionate727 (talk) 13:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as per previous entry. Kbrose (talk) 14:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. WP:NOTFAQ applies to articles, not redirects. While it is not the most common practice, redirecting a common question with an unambiguous answer to the article that contains that answer meets none of the deletion criteria for redirects and does aid searches and prove useful to someone. Remember that redirects are WP:CHEAP. ~ RobTalk 14:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ, which, along with any other statement on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, can be applied to Wikipedia as a whole, including redirects. (If the word "does" was added to the redirect, it would be a question. It could have been possible that this word was accidentally omitted.) Steel1943 (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Please read NOTFAQ before invoking it. It's quite clear that it only applies to how articles are laid out. The claim that it can be applied to "Wikipedia as a whole, including redirects" is untrue. WilyD 16:26, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I wouldn't have "invoked" it if I didn't read it. My comment about "Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not" referring to Wikipedia "as a whole" still stands. Anyone can debate the interpretation of that page in discussion (as apparently, we are doing here). If you want to invalidate any part of WP:WWIN to not apply to specific aspects of Wikipedia, feel free to start a discussion on its talk page. However, it looks like the discussion about specifically restricting WP:NOTFAQ from applying to redirects (on WP:WWIN's talk page) is approaching a WP:SNOW oppose close. Steel1943 (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
If you had read NOTFAQ, you would have discovered that it's unambiguously inapplicable here, in a way that no one who had read it could miss. There's no need to apply a footnote to it say it doesn't apply to redirects, any more than there's a need to apply a footnote to WP:CSD#G12 saying it doesn't apply to redirects. The substance of what it says makes it entirely unambigious that it cannot. So, again, I implore you to read NOTFAQ before invoking it. WilyD 09:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ and Steel1943. Not elaborating on each individually as so many have been listed of this type on this date.Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Although this redirect includes the word "How", it's not even a question. It's simply a rephrasing of the title into more ordinary language. Since FAQ is totally inapplicable, can you explain why you invoked it to delete this redirect, which does not involve any question in any way, shape, or form? WilyD 16:27, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
      • @WilyD: The combination explosion that would result from phrasing every title, section title, or piece of info from an article that people might be looking for in this manner in a "How", "What", "Where", etc. form would be insane. It's similar to the spirit of WP:NOTFAQ in nature. Wikipedia has a search engine, these type of redirects are not necessary.Godsy(TALKCONT) 08:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
        • The number of pages and redirects on Wikipedia is going to be large regardless. Nothing is necessary - we can choose to be slightly dickish to our readership in exchange for no encyclopaedic benefit. But why would we want to? Why write an encyclopaedia and deliberately make it hard to find what you're looking for? WilyD 09:02, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
          • @WilyD: We clearly fundamentally disagree. I'm not going to spend the time having basically the same discussion with you on multiple August 7 RfD's. If you have any further inquiries about my rationales that you would like answered concerning the issue at hand regarding multiple entries on this page, feel free to post on my talk page, and I'll reply there. Regards,Godsy(TALKCONT) 09:21, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
            • This isn't for my benefit. The point of this board to ensure redirects exist that get readers to the content they're looking for. Hiding relevant discussions isn't going to be helpful. This is the place to discuss whether we should move readers who are looking for this content along for the content, or take away their guide, so they flounder in frustration and helplessness. If there's a compelling need for the encyclopaedia to treat this readers with such contempt, everyone should know what it is. WilyD 09:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep The target article definitely describes how internet use affects humans. Granted, the target article is about psychological effects only, but that may be all there is to say anyway. I can't really imagine the internet specifically having any physiological effects that would differ from computer use generally. --BDD (talk) 21:43, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 16:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - the target only details one of many ways that internet/technology use affect humans. What about cultural, financial, economic, political, sociological effects? It's simply not anywhere near as narrow as this target. Because of how vague this is, I can't imagine that we have a better target. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per Ivanvector. That's a really good point—I was still just thinking in terms of biology, but you're right, of course. Sociology of the Internet is also relevant, and perhaps other topics. We shouldn't just choose one, and this isn't a good candidate for disambiguation. --BDD (talk) 19:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:XY since I don't believe there to be one target suitable for this query. -- Tavix (talk) 17:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

How directness of sunlight causes warmer weather[edit]

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

  • Keep per my point at #How internet use affects humans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rubbish computer (talkcontribs) 12:45, 7 August 2015
  • Keep as plausible. Compassionate727 (talk) 13:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. WP:NOTFAQ applies to articles, not redirects. While it is not the most common practice, redirecting a common question with an unambiguous answer to the article that contains that answer meets none of the deletion criteria for redirects and does aid searches and prove useful to someone. Remember that redirects are WP:CHEAP. ~ RobTalk 14:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ, which, along with any other statement on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, can be applied to Wikipedia as a whole, including redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ and Steel1943. Not elaborating on each individually as so many have been listed of this type on this date.Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Especially since the target article has a descriptive name, we should be generous with redirects to it. This isn't really a matter of a FAQ: the article describes "how directness of sunlight causes warmer weather". There's no query, "How [does] directness of sunlight [cause] warmer weather?" Pedantic, perhaps, but an important distinction in my book. --BDD (talk) 21:39, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 16:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - this seems reasonable. I mean, there are other factors influencing sunlight's impact on climate, like clouds or the greenhouse effect, but those aren't "directness" factors really. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Cochrane Database Syst Rev[edit]

Cochrane collaboration
Cochrane library

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

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

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

市区重建局[edit]

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

  • Comment (as creator) I have considered this ambiguity at creation, so I also made sure there are headnotes linking between both articles (diffs: [2][3]). I have no objection to any suggestion to better solve this bold introduction of confusion, including deletion or perhaps a Category:Disambiguation pages with Chinese character titles. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 14:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Rubbish computer 17:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think if both places defaulted to the same scripts, a disambiguation would be the best choice, but from the references I've seen, the current way this is set up looks to be a good solution. The hatnotes should clear up confusion so I don't see the benefit of deletion here. -- Tavix (talk) 17:51, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Tucking in (parenting, food)[edit]

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

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

Qantas.jp[edit]

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

  • Strong delete. This is not the official website of Qantas: the official website is "qantas.com.au" and that's the website that appears in the article. Since this is not the official website, it isn't mentioned at the the target, making it confusing at best. These are extremely implausible search terms. Who would search this website in Wikipedia? Since the website already says "Qantas", they would already know that it's Qantas, so a general article on the airline wouldn't be helpful. It would make sense if we had Qantas in Japan, for example, but that's not the case here. WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:RFD#D8 also applies. -- Tavix (talk) 00:17, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - directs readers to what they're looking for, no rationale presented for deletion. The actual website(s) redirect to quantas.com.au, so it's no more confusing than real life (and really, one would be hard pressed to suggest a reason it's confusing at all). WilyD 08:49, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per WilyD - these are all entirely harmless and unambiguously direct people to the content they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 11:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  • How do you know that's the content they're looking for? The target doesn't mention any of these websites or any of these countries referred to by the TLDs, so someone looking for specific content on these websites or countries are going to be disappointed. -- Tavix (talk) 15:55, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep as these appear to be plausible synonyms. Rubbish computer 12:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
@Rubbish computer: Why do you think that? It seems entirely implausible to me. Even if, in the off chance someone were to type "qantas.jp," they would already knows about Qantas but would probably be looking for specific information about Qantas in Japan or that website itself, which we don't have. -- Tavix (talk) 15:55, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @Tavix: It was viewed 4 times in about 5 weeks before it was first discussed, so I feel it is of use to some people.
  • Really? Those stats are bot levels. These don't actually have use. -- Tavix (talk) 16:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Okay, but I support my decision. Rubbish computer 17:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete wikipedia is not a random collection of web addresses that redirect to the owners, as these sites are not notable they are not mentioned in the target they dont add anything to the encyclopedia. MilborneOne (talk) 17:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep harmless. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:07, 24 August 2015 (UTC).
  • Delete per Tavix, unless we specifically discuss these websites or Qantas operation in any of those countries. --BDD (talk) 14:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion and its precedent seem to be heading in different directions, so I'm cautious...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 13:47, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per the precedent listed above, which I agree with. The subject of the redirects are not specifically identified at the target by their corresponding geographic regions, so call this a WP:REDLINK deletion, if you will. (However, I have an idea in the making that may change my mind ... call it something to resolve the "REDLINK" concern. If I don't add more to this discussion, assume it didn't happen and my rationale stands.) (I explored this option, and I changed my mind. Steel1943 (talk) 18:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)) Steel1943 (talk) 17:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Fromagier[edit]

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

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

U mad[edit]

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

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

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

Democratic[edit]

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

...the disambiguation page at democrat accomplishes that. -- Tavix (talk) 14:35, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Actually, Tavix, I think the IP is suggesting to merge the disambiguation pages together. Steel1943 (talk) 16:08, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't think that would be a helpful merge, since there are many proper noun meanings of each. bd2412 T 16:36, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
...Agreed. Steel1943 (talk) 17:54, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Commment. Neither is a proper noun, adn "democratic" is an adjective. WP:NOUN. But I imagine too useful to delete. Si Trew (talk) 19:16, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:XY, per all of the above points. "Democratic" can describe a political ideology or party (democrat) or a philosophy or form of government (democracy). Disambiguating to two more disambiguation pages is clunky, let's just delete it. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
"Democratic" gets 50+ page views per day, so I think deleting it would do more harm than good. At least when you retarget to Democrat, it lists all possible meanings of "Democratic" already, including the other dab mentioned above. -- Tavix (talk) 15:50, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 23:03, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget per Tavix. Thryduulf (talk) 14:40, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I'll go to retarget per Tavix. If Democrat lists uses for "democracy" then that satisfies my concerns. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:26, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, mostly because I'm concerned about the incoming links, which demonstrate that the redirect is working as intended. "Democracy" is the core idea here; something democratic is "of or pertaining to" it. It would be one thing if Democratic itself were a disambiguation page (which may or may not be feasible). Retargeting to a dab doesn't seem especially helpful to me when there's already a hatnote at the article anyway. --BDD (talk) 22:21, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think BDD's point, raised towards the end of this discussion, needs to be debated before this RfD is closed. Deryck C. 13:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 13:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


Lists of endangered languages/UNESCO definitions[edit]

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

  • Keep as the article opens with "The following lists of endangered languages are mainly based on the definitions used by UNESCO": seems a plausible search term. Rubbish computer 10:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - While these kinds of redirects do mean that you have to be typing, have the text you need, but then keep on typing... I still see this as being reasonably helpful even if it's relatively improbable that someone would type it out. I can imagine someone searching this or writing this, in good faith, even if it's not likely. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. The only reason this pseudo-subpage is still around is the discussion that started up on its talk page. The discussion is currently in limbo, as we are apparently still waiting to hear back from UNESCO on more precise licensing terms on some of their content (this needs to be followed up on). The talk page content will either have to be moved somewhere or linked to from a relevant talk page (Talk:Lists of endangered languages) if the redirect itself is deleted. Note, BTW, that the licensing issues discussed at Talk:Lists of endangered languages/UNESCO definitions include not just the definitions but indeed the entire contents of the list articles linked to from Lists of endangered languages. - dcljr (talk) 13:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Redirect template[edit]

This is a weird redirect in that none of the entries at the target are named/titled "redirect template." However, there's a hatnote at the top of the page saying that "redirect template" redirects there and gives a few project space options. I don't understand why it's done like that. It'd probably make more sense to have this as a CNR to Wikipedia:Template messages/Redirect pages (the target of Wikipedia:Redirect template and have the hatnote there. However, I'm not a fan of WP:CNRs (see the "arguments to delete" section), so I'm leaning to delete this, but am open for discussion. -- Tavix (talk) 04:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom and per WP:RFD#D2 as a confusing redirect. Rubbish computer 10:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Less than once-daily page views indicates these are implausible search terms. Hatnote(s) to project- and template-space should be kept on the target Redirect dab, however. Wbm1058 (talk) 12:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Wikipedia:Template messages/Redirect pages - I originally created the redirect Redirect templates more than 10 years ago, and it was originally targeted to Wikipedia:Template messages/Redirect pages, but somehow over the years, the target changed to a disambiguation page that does not even link to Wikipedia:Template messages/Redirect pages. The reason I created it was so that the list of the redirect templates would be easy to find for anyone who was trying to find a list of templates for redirect pages. This should apply to Redirect templates. I'm not sure about Redirect template. Ae-a (talk) 20:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
    • That is not reader content WP:XNR to the internal pipework of Wikipedia is not for the readership -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

August 27[edit]

18 seconds[edit]

Vague term that could refer to millions of things. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (LOLTNA) 18:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. ~Liancetalk/contribs 21:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • weak Delete there are indeed many things that this could refer to, and I'm not really seeing any that are notable currently (recently there was a South Korean TV pilot by this name that may, if it gets picked up for a series and the name is retained, become notable in future). The best thing I found for now is Time (orders of magnitude), but I'm not convinced that would make a good target. Thryduulf (talk) 23:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - I see this term used in reference to a a musical artist and a surfing magazine among other things. It seems best to me to just leave the term red right now. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Rubbish computer 10:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Many possible meanings.Godsy(TALKCONT) 07:35, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep but change to disambig. I did not know the number had other notable uses. CWM and Thry have pointed out some good ones, so I think it should be change from disambig to redirect. Ranze (talk) 23:53, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Phandom[edit]

"Phandom" is not mentioned at the target page. This redirect started as an article that was vandalism and/or BLP violation. The term is apparently commonly used in the context of Philadelphia Phillies fandom and perhaps could be retargeted there instead. Deli nk (talk) 17:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - From what I've seen online, it looks like the 'Dan and Phil' comedy group use the term 'Phandom' as a sort of in-joke. They even sell products as such. However, the term in-and-of-itself is more vague and is used by other groups such as the Philadelphia Phillies team (see here for just one example) as pointed out. I'd rather just see the text left in red ideally to prevent confusion, maybe with a Phandom (disambiguation) being made as a second best option. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as an implausible synonym. Rubbish computer 10:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom or Weak Retarget to fandom as possible mispronunciation --Lenticel (talk) 00:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I had thought about the latter—I think it's as likely an error for Phantom. --BDD (talk) 13:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Dank meme[edit]

The way I see it, few people looking up "dank meme" on Wikipedia are looking for information related to internet memes in general. If they were, they would search for "internet meme." People looking for dank meme are most likely looking for information specific to dank meme, such as when it was created and where it comes from, and having it redirect to internet meme isn't helpful. Compassionate727 (talk) 14:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep: "Dank meme" has been used as a term online to describe any meme in an "ironic" way. If it's being used to describe any meme, a redirect to "internet meme" is appropriate as an alternative name. Additionally, with no more relevant articles available to redirect to, we should keep in mind that redirects are cheap. ~ RobTalk 14:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • See Dank Memes at Know Your Meme. --BDD (talk) 17:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per above points. --Rubbish computer 19:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Given your reasoning, I'm surprised that you put the page up for deletion instead of trying to add information specific to dank memes, such as when they were created and where they come from. Σσς(Sigma) 22:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per all above. ~GottaGoFast Stepitup 04:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - "Memes" are not: Unpleasantly damp; cold and wet. This is a slang usage of "dank". If it were mentioned at Know Your Meme, I'd suggest redirecting it there. It isn't. It shouldn't really direct to Internet meme, the term almost promotes Know Your Meme's attempt of entering it into usage, and definitely constitutes WP:RECENTISM.Godsy(TALKCONT) 08:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't normally like keeping redirects that aren't mentioned, but this would be the correct target for this per BDD's link and Rob's explanation. The stats show significant usage, peaking at 51 on July 10th, and that's what matters here. -- Tavix (talk) 02:39, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, somewhat per nom, and partially because I want to clarify that I wasn't actually suggesting we keep this. "Dank meme" is sort of itself a meme, and the nom is correct that a reader searching for this term probably isn't looking for memes in generally. However, I can't imagine a decent article on "Dank meme"—it's a silly phrase, like Cool story (or, perhaps, Yummy Food (RfD)), that really only serves as a dismissive response to something else. If someone could describe a way to sensibly discuss this idea at the target article or elsewhere, I'd give that consideration, but personally, I don't see how it would be done. --BDD (talk) 20:29, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 10:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
<off topic> Did you know that there's a Twitter account that does nothing but tweet at people who forget to put the hyphen in "Spider-Man"? --BDD (talk) 13:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Fascinating CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:20, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Jean Lambert-wild (en)[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 already deleted as CSD R3 by Bgwhite. Deryck C. 10:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

"(en)" is an improper disambiguation and unnecessary. The entirety of this Wikipedia is the "en" (English) Wikipedia. Implausible search term and generally un-useful. Recently created as the result of a page move.Godsy(TALKCONT) 06:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Just Juice[edit]

This is an actual brand name, which is mentioned at Frucor, but its better to have an actual article on it, the current target is unhelpful. - TheChampionMan1234 05:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete "just Juice" can also mean pure juice as in unadulterated, not from concentrate; or without alcohol; etc. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as possible WP:PROMO issue. I'm also open to an article if the brand name is actually notable. --Lenticel (talk) 05:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. I believe it is actually made from diluted orange juice concentrate, so in one sense belies its own name. In the United Kingdom, there is (or at least used to be) a legal distinction between "Pure Orange Juice" and "Fresh Orange Juice", for example: the latter cannot be from concentrate. (And I remember the ad jingle for it.) Si Trew (talk) 06:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. From justjuiceusa.com, it also seems to be a brand of electronic cigarette. Perhaps WP:RFD#D2 confusing, then. Si Trew (talk) 06:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Frucor as {{R from brand name}}. --BDD (talk) 13:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Regarget as suggested by BDD. The brand exists so people are likely to search for it. Let's direct them to something useful. This is Paul (talk) 21:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Frucor per BDD--Lenticel (talk) 00:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Frucor per BDD. Rubbish computer 10:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Samuel C. T. Dodd[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Samuel Calvin Tate Dodd per WP:SNOW. Most likely the redirect's creator was simply unaware of this article. --BDD (talk) 15:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Not mentioned at all in article. Probably is referring to Samuel Calvin Tate Dodd, and should be redirected there if so. Mr. Guye (talk) 00:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Lady lawyer[edit]

Just because female legal experts exist doesn't mean that we should have a redirect on it. I just don't see why this has to exist. Mr. Guye (talk) 00:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Weak keep certainly, this term is used to refer to female lawyers, thus a valid variation on the topic of lawyers, where what female lawyers are is discussed at the target. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
The only mention I see of specifically female lawyers is the assertion that American women lawyers still use the "Esquire" designation. Is there more discussion of I've missed? --BDD (talk) 13:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
It's a weak keep since the variant form found for females should redirect to the generic unisex term. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete unlikely to be helpful to readers. If we had an article on women in the legal profession, we could retarget it there, but we don't (closest thing we seem to have right now is women in the United States judiciary), and the current target barely discusses anything about "lady lawyers" besides a bare mention of the fact that "In the United States the style [Esq.] is also used by female lawyers.". 58.176.246.42 (talk) 05:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Further comment I can only find two other "Lady/Woman/Women [profession] → [profession]" redirects: Woman superheroSuperhero and Women rabbisrabbi, and those targets (unlike lawyer) have large sections devoted to women. The others all target an article or list which specifically discusses women in that profession. See collapse box below. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 07:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as there appears to be nowhere specifically discussing women in the legal profession. Rubbish computer 15:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Week keep due to the examples listed above. I was going to suggest a retarget to something like Women in law, but that turns out to an erroneous redirect to Women in the United States judiciary. Do other countries not have women lawyers or something? This is Paul (talk) 17:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - The topic of a lawyer itself isn't specific to a particular sex. Now if the topic at hand were women in nursing or men in nursing, and the redirects in question were lady nurse or gentlemen nurse respectively, it would be a different story. The article doesn't really cover if a sex has been historically allowed or disallowed from practicing law, with only a mention of men specifically regarding cannon law, so there isn't really a good section to refine the term to. History of the legal profession doesn't really touch on the subject of the sex of lawyers, except very briefly in regards to the first lawyers in ancient Rome.Godsy(TALKCONT) 07:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Commend - there's probably quite a good article to be written on the subject of women in law if anyone wanted to take it on. This is Paul (talk) 16:26, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

August 26[edit]

Victual[edit]

Create DAB for vittel (a place in France from which we get mineral water), wittle and ultimately vital although WP:NOTDIC. There seems to be enough confusion with these (the V/w confusion) and since we have the discussion below at Wittle I am reluctant to just WP:BOLDly retarget. Wittel is red, but the target of "Food" (and not any section of it) seems way too vague.

I think from Houseman, A Shropshire Lad

Terence this is stupid stuff
You eat your vittals fast enough
there can't be wrong with you, I fear
To see the way you drink your beer


But as for all the verse you make
It gives the heart a belly-ache...

Just going from memory, but I think it is spelled that way in that book. I should check, I know, but have to crack on with the TR of fr:Bijou. Si Trew (talk) 22:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep disambiguations are not for misspellings. -- Tavix (talk) 22:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't think this is a usual mispelling for any of the other topics. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. Rubbish computer 15:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Where to buy marmite[edit]

Wikipedia is not a QA site. GZWDer (talk) 19:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
You're right. Retarget per User:WilyD and above. Si Trew (talk) 22:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)can the prostitute come out of the wardrobe now?
  • Delete WP:NOTGUIDE Wikipedia is not a shopping guide / Ebay / Yahoo Shops / Yellow Pages -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
In general I would agree with you, but with this one specifically, we do have information on it, so no good comes of deleting it except if you feel it sets a dangerous precedent. I have argued on other occasions to delete something because of it setting a precedent, but that argument usually fails. Si Trew (talk) 06:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Wittle[edit]

I'm getting hits that this is "baby language" for little and a misspelling for whittle, but nothing relating this to food. Should this go somewhere? -- Tavix (talk) 02:02, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

  • retarget to whittle as plausible misspelling or soft retarget to its wiktionary entry. --Lenticel (talk) 03:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think these redirects may have been created in the event that the searcher misspells "vittles", but the "w" is quite a ways from the "v" on my keyboard. Steel1943 (talk) 05:30, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
    • It would be a cognitive mispelling or a phonetic mispelling -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:02, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget Wittle to Whittle as a plausible misspelling and delete Wittles. We don't cover baby language on this wiki. ONR (talk) 09:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is Dickens’s pronunciation spelling of “victuals”, not a typo or baby talk. Gorobay (talk) 16:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep wittle is the term used for food in Charles Dickens' Great Expectations. Rabbabodrool (talk) 16:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Then that should be explained somewhere because as it stands now it's either confusing or a WP:SURPRISE for those who don't know that. -- Tavix (talk) 22:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget and delete, respectively, per ONR. Dickens's usage is not a good reason at all to keep, unless it gets explained at the target article. I doubt that usage is so notable. --BDD (talk) 13:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget wittle -> whittle as plausible misspelling. As for wittles, didn't we determine above that "vittles" is Dickens' word for "food"? And if so, is "wittles" close enough to keep? I lean towards no. I also lean towards delete for the second one per what BDD said - it's doubtful. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 13:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget both. wittle to Whittle (disambiguation) and wittles to whittling. I think it plausible for wittles to be mistakenly searched for when the intended target is Whittling. Wittle is more of an ambiguous misspelling, so it should lead to the disambiguation. None of the other listings there would as easily have an "s" added in my opinion, hence wittles should go to Whittling.Godsy(TALKCONT) 06:04, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:06, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Comment. *V and W are transposed that way by Sam Weller (fictional character) in The Pickwick Papers, too. (But it's not a Wellerism). Si Trew (talk) 19:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Delete wittles. [seems to be a WP:SURPRISE.] Rubbish computer 15:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since the previous relist, the group of recently-active participants on RFD has changed a bit. Consensus here could probably benefit from a few more participants.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Disagree. It is not a typo for "whittle" (there is no aspirant W in any pronunciation, for example, and W and H are far apart on my keyboards, so unlikely to be a slip in that way). Far more likely to be for "vittel". I feel, then, it is genuinely ambiguous, and either we DAB it as such or delete it as best left to the search engine. Si Trew (talk) 22:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm, "aspirant" is not anything to do with phonetics but a rank in Eastern European armies. Where would that lie, for me to hatnote? Aspirated consonant, it seems. Si Trew (talk) 22:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Only in some accents is a distinction made between /w/ and /ʍ/ (or /wʰ/ if you prefer) so whether* a word starts "w" or "wh" is not predictable based on pronunciation and typos/spelling errors between them are very plausible. *Actually "whether" and "weather" being homophones is a good example of this). Thryduulf (talk) 22:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, "wh" in southern English accents such as mine are not aspirated, in northern English and Scottish (not Scots) accents they tend to be moreso. Nevertheless, "wh" or "w" is unlikely to be confused with "v", so I think we are going around the houses here. "whether" and "weather" do indeed serve as a good bellwether for that :) But since "Wittle" has no "Wh", nobody would aspirate it in any dialect; they might aspirate "whittle". Si Trew (talk) 22:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
While we're at it, as baby language (or Tweetie Pie) it would mean little. Wittle pwetty baby. Voiced by the great Mel Blanc, of course. Si Trew (talk) 22:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Pacers[edit]

As much as I believe the current target is correct, it seems that there has been a bit of a dispute about it as a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT over the course of its existence. Given that this is an encyclopedia that has a wider audience than just the USA, this redirect probably needs to should be retargetted to the disambiguation page Pacer. (For the record, given both points, I'm neutral.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC) (Rationale statement changed after reading Wbm1058's comment below.) Steel1943 (talk) 03:10, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

  • @Red Slash: Yeah, but is the Indiana Pacers' claim to this term a WP:WORLDWIDE opinion? I mean, I don't know how famous the connection of the redirect to team is, say, the United Kingdom where this team does not play. My thoughts on this compare to the consensus that was formed about the move request I started for White Castle (restaurant). (Move discussion) After the result of that discussion, it seems that there might be a possibility that the world wide view of the term might go above page views, such as what happened in that discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 23:33, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  • retarget to Pacer to avoid systemic bias. --Lenticel (talk) 00:11, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
    ... systemic bias as evidenced by favoring a basketball team over...? Red Slash 02:26, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
"Named after" isn't a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC criterion. The titles Boston and Boston, Lincolnshire are not examples of systemic bias. --BDD (talk) 13:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  • retarget to Pacer. It's a horse gait. Pacing races constitute 80% to 90% of the harness races conducted in North America. See Talk:Indiana Pacers for discussions about how the basketball team got its name. I know it's a dying sport, with a casino in every town now, but between global warming and peak oil, we may miss all those horses some day. – Wbm1058 (talk) 02:36, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment the primary meaning in Indian English appears to be fast bowlers, judging from a search of various Indian newspaper websites. On the other hand, in UK and Oz newspaper results I couldn't see anything but Indiana Pacers results. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 02:42, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep at current target: PacersIndiana Pacers. Its plural, most of the others uses are singular. Quite a bit of traffic at the current target compared to others.Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:04, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect back to Pacer (disambig). Per WP:BUTIDONTKNOWABOUTIT, point back to the disambiguation page where it has spent most of its life; the colloquial name of one particular sports team is unlikely to be PRIMARY outside the local regional area. For the sake of joining the bandwagon, PRIMARY in en-GB might be the non-finishing runners at the start of a running race, a type of dreadful railbus used on low-usage railway services in the north-east, or in a legal setting the US public documents system. This in itself suggests that even in one location there isn't an obvious PRIMARY and the singular disambiguation page was and remains the most appropriate destination. —Sladen (talk) 10:21, 5 August 2015 (UTC) (Indeed, and much as it might disappoint fans and proponents, I don't recall any occasion when the "Indiana Pacers" basket ball team has been mentioned in conversation or on the news in (my) real-life, nor in abbreviated form).
  • Retarget to Pacer. Rubbish computer 13:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  • What do Google results (general or Books) look like from a non-US location? The basketball team dominates both for me. --BDD (talk) 15:04, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep pending someone producing search results drastically different from mine. My first thought was AMC Pacer, but when I google "Pacers" from Canada I get to page 3 before I see a single page that is not about the Indiana Pacers (it's about a children's advocacy organization that we don't have an article about), then after a couple more pages of basketball stuff my results devolve into non-notable restaurants and running clubs. I didn't see any results about classic cars or bowling or horse gaits. Granted, my results are probably not significantly different from BDD's American results given my location, and all of our results are likely skewed by the existence of this redirect (I don't know how to correct for that). I'm interested to see if someone searching from a region where basketball is not a major league sport gets different results, but for now I'm convinced Indiana Pacers is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:13, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
    The basketball WP:GHITS for "Pacers" appear to be occurring as sub-strings of "Indiana Pacers", rather than standalone.[4]. This might be a bit like the example of New York City vs. York, the word frequency is probably higher, but in tandem, and when alone probably does not have the same meaning. —Sladen (talk) 06:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't think that's relevant. "York" is, in our terminology, a partial title match—no one calls New York City "York". By contrast, "Pacers" is an extremely common way of referring to the Indiana Pacers. New York City properly isn't listed at York (disambiguation); the Indiana Pacers properly always should be at Pacer. Whether or not we consider it a primary topic, that much is not in doubt. --BDD (talk) 13:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to pacer; it does not only refer to Indiana Pacers, and Google Book Search doesn't show overwhelming dominance for basketball -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Pacer. pace User:Ivanvector, my Gsearch from Hungary gives me Public Access to Court Electronic Records as the seventh result on the first page (the first six are related to the Indiana Pacers). "-site:wikipedia.org" in the Google search term will remove the results from Wikipedia, but I doubt changes the relevance weighting otherwise. Si Trew (talk) 06:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
    waiiiiit, SimonTrew... so it took six pages of results from the other side of the world before you got something besides the Indiana Pacers... and you're opposing? That convinced you there was not a primary topic? Red Slash 17:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't see anywhere I wrote "oppose". Si Trew (talk) 21:42, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Red Slash, that's not what Si Trew said; he said that he first found a different subject on the 7th entry of the 1st page, not on the 7th page... Steel1943 (talk) 18:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
The clue was "first page". Si Trew (talk) 21:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm convinced that this is the primary usage. The top six results in Hungary too? I don't think I would've predicted it, but there you go. --BDD (talk) 13:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Two or three of the six are for named players from the Indiana Pacers (this is excluding Wikipedia), the rest kinda to fan pages. 'Tis much sport to see the engineer hoist with his own petard. (That's proper shakespeare that is.) I'll have a go via my UK tunnel but I doubt it will be different. Si Trew (talk) 21:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
BDD, be careful what you ask for. My Google search results for "Rockets" are dominated by the basketball team. Surely the basketball team has greater long-term significance than the rockets we use to launch vehicles into space? Wbm1058 (talk) 13:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
No, search results have their limits. Compare to Apple and Apple Inc. The general idea of rockets are something most readers will be familiar with. What's a pacer, though? I couldn't've told you before this discussion. --BDD (talk) 13:48, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
See Triple Crown of Harness Racing for Pacers. So, all the "keep" arguments here are based on search results, but you acknowledge that search results have their limits. Since I think most would concede the PT based on search alone, the arguments whether to keep or retarget should be based on the limits of search results. Packers is an example in support of "keep", but I would agree with that because the long-term meaning of "packers" is itself ambiguous. We have horse packers, household goods packers, and the meat packers that the football team is named for. So I suppose the question needing further exploration is whether "pacers", what with pace cars and such, is like that. More examples like Packers might help resolve this. Wbm1058 (talk) 15:36, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Pacer. My (logged in and logged out) searches show no primary topic for this search term. Personally, to me it means firstly Pacer (train) and secondly Pace bowler, if I was asked to give a third meaning I'd probably guess it as a synonym for Pacemaker (running). Thryduulf (talk) 21:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Actually my train of thought ran on pretty much similar lines. I would not have thought of a basketball team in the US as primary. Si Trew (talk) 22:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Pacer as I feel like there are just too many other prominent and widely-seen uses of the terms 'Pacers' and 'Pacer' to just make the direct link, especially for non-Americans CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

How to study[edit]

WP:NOTHOWTO. GZWDer (talk) 15:10, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per BDD as this an article on how to study. -- Tavix (talk) 20:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per Rob and BDD. I'm not sure why this is even being discussed - WP:NOTHOWTO is not relevant to redirects, the target is obviously correct and appropriate. Wikipedia will gain zero benefit from deleting this, but it will be harmed by people not finding the encyclopaedic content they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 21:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. I think this is under the general head of how we deal with WP:NOT, in particular, whether it applies to redirects or Wikipedia as a whole. User:Steel1943 has expressed many times, and I am in agreement with him, that WP:NOT applies to redirects, and to titles, as much as to article text. I also think WP:TITLE generally applies, in this case, WP:NOUN rules out all these "How to" and "Where is" and so on question-like phrases, and I have said so: this is not a noun, it is a sentential phrase or a sentence fragment, depending on which grammar you choose. But as with {{Wiktionary redirect}}, where User:Thryduulf cleverly came up with some rules of thumb, I think we should have some for these. I am aware of instruction creep and insist they are only guidelines and each should be argued on its own merits, but that they would be useful to refer to as shorthand rather than repeat the same arguments over and again. Si Trew (talk) 23:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

How to read a clock[edit]

WP:NOTHOWTO. GZWDer (talk) 15:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep and refine per BDD. Thryduulf (talk) 21:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

How to play basketball[edit]

WP:NOTHOWTO. GZWDer (talk) 15:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, per comments below, delete due to ambiguity since it could refer to multiple different articles currently on Wikipedia. That, and I don't believe that we make disambiguation pages from statements such as these (which would be ... a WP:NOTHOWTO violation.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO.Godsy(TALKCONT) 02:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:35, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO, WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE. Rubbish computer 13:04, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - directs reader to the content to the content they're looking for, no rationale presented for deletion. Given that HOWTO relates to article content, which redirects don't have, I can only assume something else was meant. WilyD 09:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Retarget to Rules of basketball per BDD. WP:NOTHOWTO applies to articles, not redirects. While it is not the most common practice, redirecting a common question with an unambiguous answer to the article that contains that answer meets none of the deletion criteria for redirects and does aid searches and prove useful to someone. Remember that redirects are WP:CHEAP. ~ RobTalk 00:11, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak retarget to Rules of basketball. This seems like a more accurate way of answering such a query. WilyD and Rob, what do you think? --BDD (talk) 14:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
    • I agree, and have adjusted my above comment accordingly. ~ RobTalk 14:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
    • I'm not totally convinced. "How to play basketball." is a more general topic that covers both the rules, and the strategy: Basketball playbook, or such. I think Basketball or Outline of basketball is the closest thing we have to an article on the topic. WilyD 15:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - As stated above... CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 18:52, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget (first choice) or keep (second choice) per Rob's eloquent rationale. Thryduulf (talk) 21:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Very weak retarget to Rules of basketball per ... whoever said it first. Wikipedia does not instruct its readers on the skills required to participate in sports, but there is some possibility that a reader searching this will find utility in a list of rules of the game. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Etusivu[edit]

Interlanguage soft redirects are generally considered to not be useful on the English Wikipedia. TexasAndroid (talk) 15:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

  • STrong delete target is not in English, therefore is not appropriate for a readership whose only commonly expected usable language is "English" on English Wikipedia. English Wikipedia is not a search engine for Finnish Wikipedia -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Rubbish computer 15:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Wilma Alba Cal[edit]

Interlanguage soft redirects are generally considered to not be useful on the English Wikipedia. TexasAndroid (talk) 15:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete to encourage article creation. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 15:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:REDLINK. Thryduulf (talk) 21:41, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • STrong delete target is not in English, therefore is not appropriate for a readership whose only commonly expected usable language is "English" on English Wikipedia. Further WP:REDLINK, if an article exists on another language, then it should eb redlinked to encourage creation -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:32, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Rubbish computer 15:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Translate. No need to delete it first. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
On second thought, the Spanish language article is very promotional, and I don't have enough skill in the language to sift through it. I did do a search for English-language sources which came up empty. Delete per WP:REDLINK in case someone else wants to try some time down the road. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Other liqueurs[edit]

Basically ... Other than what? (The redirect currently targets List of liqueurs#Other liqueurs, but with the ambiguous use of the word "other" before arriving at the article, it's about impossible to be able to use this as a functional redirect with the expectation that this is exactly what the reader is looking for.) Steel1943 (talk) 04:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Weak keep the list presumably would list most/many, so "other" would be also there, other to whatever it is, it would be listed. I would however, remove the section linking. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, since November last year this has been consistently getting 40-50 hits each month, except 15 in June and just shy 200 in July. I suspect much of this traffic comes from the internal link at List of cocktails#Other liqueurs where is it completely in context. The section is also in context in the list of liqueurs article. Thryduulf (talk) 09:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • That sort of proves how this redirect might not actually be useful, but this is hidden by a page view counter that is flooded by clicks on the link in the header at List of cocktails#Other liqueurs. In fact, I bet if that link was replaced with a piped link to the section, the hits on this redirect would start to decline. Steel1943 (talk) 14:49, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
In fact, let's test this. The only other possibility is that this link has "trained" some of the average readers of "cocktail" topics use that redirect to get to the list on List of liqueurs, but only because it was linked in the aforementioned section header. Steel1943 (talk) 14:54, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to the top of List of liqueurs, since it's true we can't expect readers to guess which liqueurs we put in the "main" category. WilyD 09:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as the internal link at List of cocktails#Other liqueurs is simply a link to the same section, and even linking this to the top of the same article appears likely to cause confusion; WP:R#D2. Without this link it seems an implausible search term. Rubbish computer 11:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per Rubbish, who explains why it's confusing, and per Steel, who explains why it's nonsense. -- Tavix (talk) 17:05, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It looks like Steel1943's fix has dried up visits of this redirect, though RfD may be affecting it as well.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - As is stated before, it's "other" than what? It seems to be unhelpfully confusing. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Porky pie[edit]

Makes no sense whatsoever. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Redirect - Cockney rhyming slang is what links the term "Porky pie" and "Lie" (same as "Ginger beer" with "Queer" and many other examples). However, it's not a helpful redirect directly since a good section of the searchers are going to be wanting the article for 'Pork pie'. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
{Edit} Thus, it makes more sense to direct the term to Pork Pie (disambiguation). CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:42, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Keep, this is very widely used (at least in the UK) Cockney rhyming slang ("porky pies, lies"). See wikt:porky pie, wikt:porky#Etymology 2. This news story implies that it's also used in Australian English. The nominator's befuddlement shows that we need this redirect to educate those who don't speak British (or Australian?) English. Thryduulf (talk) 22:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per Thryduulf. Usually Google picks up Cockney phrases for me but missed this one. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:24, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Soft redirect to wikt:porky pie, where the term is discussed. -- Tavix (talk) 22:45, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Soft redirect to wikt:porky pie. It is definitely used in Australia also, more often in the shortened "porkies" form. I would assume that two groups of people would search for the term; (1) those who don't know what it means and (2) those who do know but want to know why it means "lie". The first group would be wondering why they are redirected to the "Lie" article, because the article makes no reference to the slang term. Similarly, the second group would not be given the information they are seeking. So I think the wikitionary redirect is the best option, since it has a brief explanation and a link to cockney rhyming slang. I think the proportion of people who were actually looking for pork pie would be low; they will have to correct their own typo. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:42, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per Thryduulf. Rubbish computer 02:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect - Cockney rhyming slang per User:CoffeeWithMarkets. --Legis (talk - contribs) 14:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose retarget to Cockney rhyming slang since "pork pie" is an example of "cockney rhyming slang", but "country rhyming slang" isn't exclusive to just the phrase "pork pie". Neutral on all other recommendations thus far. Steel1943 (talk) 17:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. As a Cockney I think I do have some kind of special knowledge of this. Usually Cockney rhyming slang is abbreviated so that it would just be "You are telling porkies" or "That's a porky", for example if I need to look at something I say "Let's have a butchers" not "Let's have a butcher's hook". The rhyming slang is dead, essentially, as a language, were it ever alive except in late nineteenth century novels for the gorblimey minor characters, but the remnants remain in these kind of phrases, and still kinda tend to be promulgated as nursery language. Unfortunately, it's not documented very well: I had a book on cockney slang but it was just the list of phrases really, with no idea of etymology. For example, from cockney Me old china, meaning "my friend", meaning "my old china plate, old meaning longstanding", meaning "my mate" is not immediately obviou how you get from a friend to China. Si Trew (talk) 21:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Gourmette chain[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. Thanks to Si Trew for creating the article at Gourmette. --BDD (talk) 16:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

From results I am finding per search engines, this term could refer to a chain bracelet or chain necklace. I would assume that there is a good retargetting option out there somewhere, but I'm not having luck finding it right now. Steel1943 (talk) 07:41, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Disambig perhaps, I agree that this seems to refer equally to either of those articles. Thryduulf (talk) 12:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate per there being several suitable targets. Rubbish computer 12:24, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Write article - we could translate the stub at fr:Gourmette. This seems to be a particular design of jewellery chain bracelet (curb bracelet) with a flat pad for engraving, similar to an ID bracelet, but distinct from a charm bracelet. See images. On the other hand, it's possible that gourmette is just the French word for a curb chain, and/or this usage is not well known in English, in which case I think this passes the WP:FORRED test and retargeting to jewellery chain would be fine. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:19, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Interesting, interesting. I've left a note at WP:GEM and at WP:EQUINE for more input. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:27, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per FORRED. Also, trotting over from WPEQ, I for one have never heard the term, but some of the bracelet images do have a flat link design similar to some curb chains. I'm OK with it redirecting to bracelet, though Someone can always cross-link if more info appears (pun intended). Montanabw(talk) 03:58, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Meh, it could be a necklace; redirect to jewelry if you want, I don't have a strong opinion there. I suggest just examining links and seeing what definition is prevalent. All I know is that it is not an English language synonym for a horse's curb chain, though I can see the parallels in design, so it makes some sense it's used that way in France, if it is. Montanabw(talk) 04:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete for now since it isn't explained anywhere. Call it a WP:REDLINK deletion if you want. Oppose disambiguation as none of the potential entries would pass WP:DABMENTION. -- Tavix (talk) 18:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Procedural close, please. I have translated the stub article at fr:Gourmette to en:Gourmette, which was red and ready for it. (This could have been here as WP:CONCISE. I have WP:BOLDly retargeted this redirect to there. This is still a redirect, then, but as suggested it now makes sense. No, it is not a curb chain, but a chain linked bracelet, "curb" there is a false friend (faux ami). Si Trew (talk) 21:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Oh bollox, the more important one to do now is at fr:Bijou. Bijou in English is a DAB that doesn't mention it. This is going to tie me up with this translation, I bet. All for the love of you. Got coffee in, will have a go. I note Jewelry chain -> Jewellery chain so suits me if they are in Br. Eng; I've tagged that as {{R from other spelling}} (was untagged) but do we have more specific {{R from US spelling}} or {{R from English variant}} or {{R to UK spelling}} or something like that? Si Trew (talk) 21:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:([edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Retarget to DAB at Wikipedia:Parenthesis (non-admin closure) by Si Trew (talk) 23:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm really not sure what to say here. It appears to be an attempt at a sad face, but I frankly don't see the probability of using it. I myself only found it by accidentally hitting the parenthesis button while trying to type WP:*. -©2015 Compassionate727(Talk)(Contributions) 13:44, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

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

How to make a Mayday call[edit]

WP:NOTHOWTO. GZWDer (talk) 15:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO. Steel1943 (talk) 00:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO.Godsy(TALKCONT) 02:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOTHOWTO -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Comment also possibly in violation of WP:MEDICAL since it supposedly proffers advice on how to gain emergency attention -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO. Rubbish computer 13:06, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. WP:NOTHOWTO applies to articles, not redirects. While it is not the most common practice, redirecting a common question with an unambiguous answer to the article that contains that answer meets none of the deletion criteria for redirects and does aid searches and prove useful to someone. Remember that redirects are WP:CHEAP. ~ RobTalk 00:11, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak keep The article somewhat describes how to make a Mayday call (e.g., "The call is always given three times in a row ('Mayday Mayday Mayday')"). I sure hope readers looking for this term are just curious and not in distress on a boat, but there you go. --BDD (talk) 14:52, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 13:37, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. The way to make a mayday call is to shout French: M'aidez. That is bleeding obvious. Why would someone want to know this? If they are in this much trouble, they are unlikely to check Wikipedia for the answer in case they shout "FOR - SAKE HELP ME OUT" by mistake. WP:NOTGUIDE. Si Trew (talk) 21:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Actually on aircraft it is usually given twice not thrice. At least, under Civil Aviation Authority rules, but they don't let me in the cockpit any more for some reason... Si Trew (talk) 21:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Neutral. I've read the Mayday article, and it does sort of explain how to make a mayday call, but it could be a lot clearer. There are two things that could meant by this search term - how to physically make a mayday call, or the procedure for doing so. The first is not encyclopaedic - either you shout it, or it you need to know how to operate many different types of marine or aviation radio (or flags possibly) - so we can ignore it for these purposes. The second, what procedures, is vaguely covered in the article (say it twice or three times, what other information to include) but this is not clearly laid out for those purposes (nor should it really be, unless that is also an encyclopaedic layout - I don't know off the top of my head in this case) and is incomplete (which it need not always be). I'm torn between not letting perfect be the enemy of the good, and not misleading people that we have something more than we do. Thryduulf (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - That someone would immediately search this in case of distress sounds like something out of a sitcom, honestly. You might as well have a redirect How Do You Spell The Word S-O-S In The Sand When You're Trapped On A Desert Island And Only Have Spiky Rocks?. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Good point, we don't have How to make an SOS call or dit dit dit, dar dar dar, dit dit dit although ... --- ...SOS and is not rcatted. I don't know how one could rcat that, {{R from other language}}, {{R from other alphabet}}? Si Trew (talk) 05:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
...---... should probably also be nominated, seems ambiguous. Could also be morse code and who knows how many other things. -©2015 Compassionate727(Talk)(Contributions) 18:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

How to factor polynomials[edit]

WP:NOTHOWTO. GZWDer (talk) 15:05, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO. Steel1943 (talk) 00:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO.Godsy(TALKCONT) 02:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOTHOWTO -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO. Rubbish computer 13:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - directs reader to the content to the content they're looking for, no rationale presented for deletion. Given that HOWTO relates to article content, which redirects don't have, I can only assume something else was meant. WilyD 09:45, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. WP:NOTHOWTO applies to articles, not redirects. While it is not the most common practice, redirecting a common question with an unambiguous answer to the article that contains that answer meets none of the deletion criteria for redirects and does aid searches and prove useful to someone. Remember that redirects are WP:CHEAP. ~ RobTalk 00:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak keep I agree that NOTHOWTO is primarily about article content, though I'm really only comfortable with such redirects when there's is some how-to content. The target article does contain some such information. I'm really not knowledgeable about math to say whether there's enough there to make this really helpful to readers, but my hunch is that it could be. --BDD (talk) 14:50, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 13:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • 'Delete', again.struck Si Trew (talk) 23:44, 26 August 2015 (UTC) Factorisation of polynomials is red, so if kept, that should be an {{R from other spelling}}. (see -ize). Si Trew (talk) 20:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Comment I've created Factorisation of polynomials as the existence of the target is not in doubt and this is a clear British English/American English spelling difference. I am not nearly good enough at maths to understand whether the target does explain how to factor polynomials or not so I am not going to express an opinion on the merits of this redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 22:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Yep, I am an idiot, I was not disputing the existence of the target, and sorry if it sounded so. I should have just created the -ise form meself. Si Trew (talk) 23:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

How to fish[edit]

WP:NOTHOWTO. GZWDer (talk) 15:05, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO. Steel1943 (talk) 00:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO.Godsy(TALKCONT) 02:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOTHOWTO -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO. Rubbish computer 13:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Retarget to Fishing Techniques], which has the same meaning. ++ directs reader to the content to the content they're looking for, no rationale presented for deletion. Given that HOWTO relates to article content, which redirects don't have, I can only assume something else was meant. WilyD 09:45, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. WP:NOTHOWTO applies to articles, not redirects. While it is not the most common practice, redirecting a common question with an unambiguous answer to the article that contains that answer meets none of the deletion criteria for redirects and does aid searches and prove useful to someone. Remember that redirects are WP:CHEAP. ~ RobTalk 00:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Why Fishing and not Fishing techniques? --BDD (talk) 15:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak retarget to Fishing techniques. I agree that NOTHOWTO is primarily about article content, though I'm really only comfortable with such redirects when there's is some how-to content. That's tricky, since that content is usually proscribed. But Fishing techniques describes the major ways "how to fish", appropriately I think. WilyD and Rob, I don't know if you saw my question above: is Fishing really a better target for this than Fishing techniques? My second choice would still be to delete. --BDD (talk) 14:48, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
    • @BDD: Sorry, hadn't seen the question. I personally think the better redirect is "fishing", considering that it also covers such topics as tackle, fishing vessels, etc which are all part of how one fishes. Fishing techniques covers only the act of actually catching the fish, not everything else that goes into fishing. Additionally, fishing techniques is linked at the top of the techniques section in fishing, so if they do happen to be looking for the very specific information on a particular technique, they can find it easily enough from the main article. ~ RobTalk 14:54, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
    • I would agree Fishing Techniques is a better choice, yes. "how to fish" is the same phrase as "Fishing techniques" but avoiding three dollar words. WilyD 15:13, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 13:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

How to control global warming[edit]

WP:NOTHOWTO. GZWDer (talk) 15:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

For background on how this article was created, see this. As it's a redirect and could be useful in linking a Wikipedia article to a relevant search engine result I don't think this page needs to be deleted. --TS 15:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO. Rubbish computer 16:50, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO. Steel1943 (talk) 00:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO and nom.Godsy(TALKCONT) 02:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOTHOWTO -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:24, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOTHOWTO as everyone else has said. --Mr. Guye (talk) 21:13, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Lenticel (talk) 01:15, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - directs reader to the content to the content they're looking for, no rationale presented for deletion. Given that HOWTO relates to article content, which redirects don't have, I can only assume something else was meant. WilyD 09:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. WP:NOTHOWTO applies to articles, not redirects. While it is not the most common practice, redirecting a common question with an unambiguous answer to the article that contains that answer meets none of the deletion criteria for redirects and does aid searches and prove useful to someone. Remember that redirects are WP:CHEAP. ~ RobTalk 00:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Sort of clunky phrasing, but TS's link does show that it's somewhat plausible. The target article is indeed about how to "control" global warming (i.e., climate change), so that's fine with me. --BDD (talk) 14:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 13:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per BDD. If someone is searching for this term then they are most likely looking for information at this target article, if they are not then reading the target article is likely to help them either directly (by linking to what they are looking for) or indirectly (by helping them refine their search terms). Thryduulf (talk) 22:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

How to solve the Rubiks Cube[edit]

WP:NOTHOWTO. GZWDer (talk) 15:15, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment: I merged these two discussions together due to the redirects being almost identical. Steel1943 (talk) 15:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:REDLINK, to encourage article creation. I seem to remember this was actually the title of a book by some precious thirteen-year-old who could do it in thirty seconds (although that may have been "how to do the Rubik's Cube; my emphasis): he less youthful was on a repeat of a BBC television documentary "I love 1982" the other night (and did it in thirty-seven seconds). here at WikiBooks has some relevant information. Si Trew (talk) 21:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO. Steel1943 (talk) 00:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO and Si Trew.Godsy(TALKCONT) 02:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete wP:NOTGAMEGUIDE -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:24, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO, WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE. Rubbish computer 12:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - directs reader to the content to the content they're looking for, no rationale presented for deletion. Given that HOWTO relates to article content, which redirects don't have, I can only assume something else was meant. WilyD 09:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. WP:NOTHOWTO applies to articles, not redirects. While it is not the most common practice, redirecting a common question with an unambiguous answer to the article that contains that answer meets none of the deletion criteria for redirects and does aid searches and prove useful to someone. Remember that redirects are WP:CHEAP. ~ RobTalk 00:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak retarget to Rubik's Cube#Solutions. At first glance, the redirect as is seems ok, but the target article is really just about algorithms for solving the Rubik's Cube. I think a reader searching for this phrase is probably looking for something mundane. For that reason, I'm against keeping the redirect as is; deletion is my second choice. --BDD (talk) 14:56, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 13:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete again for the same reason, but thanks to User:Thryduulf we have more explicit reasons for when a redirect is WP:NOT appropriate. Si Trew (talk) 20:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • disambig. I'm not sure why my comments are being cited as a reason to delete this, as this is an example we should keep: this is a search term that we have encyclopaedic content relevant to. The only problem is that we have several things they could be looking for, Rubik's cube#Solutions, Layer by Layer, CFOP Method (AKA Fridrich Method) and Optimal solutions for Rubik's Cube. Template:Rubik's Cube suggests that there are at least two other solution methods - Roux Method and Corners first method - that we do not yet have articles for. I think the current targets is the weakest, as it's principally about the mathematics and my gut feeling is that some using this search term is more interested in practical methods than mathematical ones (although this may just be my own prejudice). Thryduulf (talk) 21:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Thryduulf, I think a disambiguation page with this title would be very silly. However, I wonder if material from Rubik's Cube#Solutions could be spun off into its own article. I think Optimal solutions for Rubik's Cube could remain as is, perhaps with a clearer title to make explicit that it's about algorithms, but I think it would definitely make sense to merge Layer by Layer and CFOP Method there. The redirects under discussion could then target that page, probably called Rubik's Cube solutions. This might be worthwhile even if the redirects are deleted. What do you think? --BDD (talk) 13:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I'd certainly support that proposal. Thryduulf (talk) 13:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Phantom song[edit]

Wrong target. And quite generic also. "Phantom song" would have meant songs of The Phantom of the Opera until recent past. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

<-- Redirect based on premise that a user might look for Phantom (song). All currently extant links to Phantom (song) have as their intended target the page that is now Phantom (Justice song) (moved 07:06, 13 December 2011). -->
This comment and change was added by @JohnFromPinckney: with this edit. Si Trew (talk) 07:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Soap and water[edit]

Comment. Since I thought we should all wash our mouths out after all this offensiveness, I also note that this one just goes to Soap, without rcat. {{R from phrase}}? Soap and Water, Soap And Water are red. I don't think it helps to have this phrase just going to soap; it could be refined as {{R to section}} Soap#Action of soap, which is the only place water is mentioned. (Though that's a bad section title, "Action" would be more WP:CONCISE since patently it is of soap.)

Soapy water is also red. Si Trew (talk) 06:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment. When I created this redirect back in 2003, there was no such thing as an rcat. If you want to add rcats, redirect to a section, and/or change the name of the section you redirect it too, then you should probably be bold and just do that. (I have no strong opinions about any of these options myself.) —Toby Bartels (talk) 15:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Um, offensiveness was red when I wrote it. User:Toby Bartels just created it today. I am not sure it is the business of RfD to encourage creating redirects, although this is undoubtedly useful. Marked as {{R to disambiguation page}}. I started in 2009, sorry to be such a latecomer to the party. Si Trew (talk) 20:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep the way it is. I'm going to read your nom statement as the action you want to happen is a refining of Soap and water to Soap#Action of soap. I'm not sure that's quite helpful so I think it's best to leave it as it is. -- Tavix (talk) 20:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect - It seems pretty simple to me. Someone looking up 'washing with soap', 'soap and water', etc would probably want Soap#Action of soap. I think that's most helpful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Fucker[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. Resolved. --BDD (talk) 13:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Change rcat to {{R from agent}}, which we have not got. (I think in some grammars these are called "actor"s). Currently it is {{R from plural}}, which patently it is not.

Someone else probably has a better idea of what rcat it should be, but it is certainly not a plural, as it is currently marked. {{R from verb}} or {{R from verbal noun}} also not right. This is uncontroversial housekeeping but the redirect page is fully protected so I can't do it myself. Si Trew (talk) 06:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

  • I cannot add the RfD notification to the page, because it is fully protected. Si Trew (talk) 06:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Whatever we decide, do the same with FuckersFuck, which is neither protected nor rcatted at all. That one could be R from plural of course, in addition to however we rcat the singular: but there's no point my doing so until we have consensus here. Si Trew (talk) 06:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • comment. I have added the rfd tag to Fucker. I don't have an opinion about it's categorisation (at the moment at least). Thryduulf (talk) 12:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: I tagged and merged Fuckers into this discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 12:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Procedural close as nom hasn't suggested a course of action with regard to changing the redirect, only its categorization, which should be an {{edit protected}} request. FWIW I agree {{R from plural}} should be taken off of Fucker but {{R from related word}} is appropriate, and Fuckers is currently not protected but there's a good chance it should be. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Procedural close by nominator. Thanks all for the admin wrap-up: the gnomework has been done. Si Trew (talk) 20:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Note: Since the redirect is fully protected, an admin needs to close this. -- Tavix (talk) 20:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Redirects to Profanity[edit]

These redirects are examples of their target, but they are not identified as encyclopedic subjects at their targets, or most of them mentioned in the article. These are probably examples of a WP:NOTDIC violation unless encyclopedic material can be found about them to create content. Otherwise, I'd say weak retarget to Wiktionary those that have entries, but preferably delete for at least those without Wiktionary entries due to not being identified at their target. Steel1943 (talk) 02:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment wikt:cockmuncher, wikt:dadgum, and wikt:shitface exist. "Crazy fucker" and "pussy shit" don't, because they don't meet Wiktionary's inclusion criteria (see wikt:WT:SOP). Not sure whether "blood-belching vagina" does. Slant (slur) is probably notable on its own and should thus deleted per WP:REDLINK. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 03:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete all, WP:NOTDIC. FuckerFuck, which is encylopaedic, but perhaps should be refined to section Fuck#Offensiveness, where motherfucker is also mentioned, but not "Crazy fucker". Motherfucker defines in its WP:FIRSTSENTENCE as a "vulgarism", so again we have some prevaricating around the bush on whether these are vulgar, offensive, or profane: but that's a secondary point. Since vulgar literally just means common (as in Vulgar Latin or the Vulgate) it does not necessarily mean offensive; "profane" I thought mostly was used in religious contexts but seems not from the lede there which defines it essentially as "offensive". With all these, we are treading on Wikt's toes a bit, and to include them here when not at Wikt is absurd: if anything, we should transfer them to Wiktionary, but there is nothing to transfer. Si Trew (talk) 06:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Comment, veering off topic, I have never heard "dadgum", is that pronounced like dodgem or like "dad gum"? No idea what it means, perhaps not WP:WORLDWIDE (not that that matters.) Of course I can look it up, but the very point is that if people are looking it up here they should not get a WP:SURPRISE. Similarly "pussy shit", is this just a bad rendering/hearing of piece of shitshit? Si Trew (talk) 06:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
It's like "dad gum", pronounced the same as "dad" meaning "father" and "gum" meaning the sticky product that gets chewed. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Ha, that's quite good. My favourite still is (up)hill gardener for a male homosexual (because they shovel the shit back up). Si Trew (talk) 06:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget Slant (slur) to List_of_ethnic_slurs#S, where it is discussed (under "slope"). WilyD 12:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
    • /Retarget Slant (slur) per WilyD. Nice find. Slopehead also is R to that section but was not marked as such, I shall do promptly. Slope head and Slope Head are red. I was tempted to say we are not discussing ethnic slurs but sexual slurs, but this is the best target. Si Trew (talk) 20:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Added a courtesy comment at target per MOS:LINK2SECT (to which apparently WP:LINK2SECT do not go). Si Trew (talk) 20:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Two redirects. Which is out of order, although Wikipedia:Deletion_policy has little to say on the subject of redirects. But once something comes to discussion, WP:CSD should not delete it. WP:BRD applies, and the D does not stand for delete.
There's no point reversing the delete now, but it is out of order to do so without even bothering to inform the discussion. Thank you for doing so. Despite what Twinkle says, it is not "Redirects for deletion", but "discussion". Shitface was deleted by User:Sphilbrick but seems to have a long history of being speedily deleted; Pussy shit under WP:R3 by User:Dweller. Why bother? Si Trew (talk) 20:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Nah, it happens all the time; I've done it. If a page meets a speedy criterion then no amount of discussion will save it. That's what the speedy criteria are for - pages where it's so clear they should be deleted that discussion is not necessary or desirable. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
If you would like to have a proper discussion before making the decision to let me know I'll be happy to restore it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

August 25[edit]

Female privilege[edit]

Previous RfDs for this redirect:

Delete as an ill-defined redirect. The sub-section it links to does not really discuss or explain "female privilege" at all. The section at Men's rights movement#Female privilege merely references the term, and doesn't really explain what it means: the concept of "female privilege" as defined by the men's right movement is markedly different to that of the feminist perspective. If Wikipedia isn't going to host an article about this controversial term then it should simply be deleted. Betty Logan (talk) 22:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Due to the below discussion, I am now neutral. At this point, the only way I will have an opinion either way is if a valid, verifiable case to "delete per WP:REDLINK" is made, and I currently do not see one. Steel1943 (talk) 11:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC) (Actually, WP:REDLINK seems to be the nominator's rationale, so I'll just sit this one out since I am a bit unclear about the redirect's subject as a distinct subject for an article, and probably will continue to be unclear.) Steel1943 (talk) 11:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - That a socio-political concept exists by that name is clear. How to define it and what exactly it means isn't clear, but that's not the same thing as notability or being helpful by its inclusion. Aquatic ape theory is a bunch of pseudo-scientific nonsense advocated most prominently by some feminists (not, of course, all or even most feminists) but it has its own article and related sections. One can go on: Creationism, Space opera in Scientology doctrine, Mormon cosmology, etc are not scientifically valid but exist as articles due to having notable ideological proponents. Also, whether or not something is approved or not approved by "the feminist perspective" is hardly relevant-- we have articles on free-market capitalism, classical liberalism, limited government, and all kinds of concepts that many feminists are opposed to and condemn if they happen to be of the Marxist-Leninist feminist/eco-feminist/radical-feminist/etc variety. Looking at "the male perspective" doesn't matter either; no two men off the street would define a broad concept like 'creationism' exactly the same either, what matters being what sources say.
The section as it stands in the 'men's rights' article now is incomplete, but that's a problem in terms of needing more content. What gets cited as being examples of 'female privilege'-- transwomen that seek to fully transition get more of a backlash than women that are just non-binary, men and not women are covered by the draft, men have trouble receiving needed depression and anti-suicide treatment, gay and bisexual men receive more violent and constant homophobic attacks when compared to lesbians and bisexual women, etc-- are of course controversial (and I only agree somewhat myself), but they have been made and are notable. Yes, an article on on 'Female privilege' just by itself would be better, then it could talk about the nature of overlapping prejudices and intersectionality (dealing with problems such as the hatred expressed by some cis-gendered white female feminists against transgender people, lower class people, and racial minorities) and it would be helpful. Until then, the redirect seems okay as a midpoint. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
"whether or not something is approved or not approved by "the feminist perspective" is hardly relevant" — how is it any less relevant than the mens' rights movement? Why does the perspective of one form of activism trump another? Either define the term neutrally or don't bother. This sort of bullshit is why women don't bother with Wikipedia. Since the mens rights movement takes a particular stance on "female privilege" then you can't have a neutral treament of the topic within the context of mens' rights; nor would I expect it to. If it is retained it should really be redirected to sexism, like gender bias and gender discrimination are, but I honestly don't see the point since no article utilises the redirect anyway. Betty Logan (talk) 03:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
1)If you actually read other people's comments before replying, you'd see that I pointed out that the "X perspective" doesn't matter in terms of whether or not articles exist or not and what content is included or not, period. That applies to whatever "X perspective" we're talking about here. From "the Christian perspective", it could be taken as a matter of faith that evolution is false and Islam is a degenerate religion. From "the Marxist perspective", it could be taken as a matter of faith that capitalism is evil. From "the feminist perspective", it could be a matter of faith that increased government censorship is needed to restrict on individuals free expression. Wikipedia is a neutral, unbiased encyclopedia (at least that's what it should be), and if a large number of people are concerned about a certain 'Y topic' than the 'Y topic' article (or subsection within a greater article) will be created. Whatever the viewpoint of the "X perspective" is, the 'Y topic' article/section needs to be written in a fair-minded and objective way rather than just used as a soapbox.
2)The concepts of class discrimination, homophobia, cis-female privileges, and so on, are very well things that deserve their own article, one can argue that. However, just because the concept exists more generally doesn't mean that you can't have also mentioned on a Wikipedia article on a related topic, any more than an article about feminism generally will describe specifically black feminism and other ethnic minority feminist efforts. That a men's rights movement article exists does it, by itself, make the article inherently some kind of 'no-go' area for anyone that's not a member. For the love of God, how is that true with just about any Wikipedia article in general? I'm neither a Saudi nor an anti-terrorist expert, but that doesn't mean that I shouldn't work on Response of Saudi Arabia to ISIL. Wikipedia articles are not battlegrounds that are meant to be guarded by a small clique against anybody else venturing into that territory. Wikipedia articles are repositories of information. Just like how any topic with controversy and debate about it existing doesn't have to be scrubbed or censored just because it's controversial-- we have articles such as Abortion in the United States, Tea party movement, Criticism of Christianity, and a plethora of other such things.
3)Finally, speaking as a transperson myself, I find it frankly hilarious that you A)ignorantly and stupidly assume that I'm male, B)ignorantly and stupidly assume that my belief on the role of Wikipedia (which come from Wikipedia guidelines) are somehow an outgrowth of being male, and C)ignorantly and stupidly assume that what's happening is some kind of sign about Wikipedia in general. If anything, the fact that there's this open discussion is going on in which someone like me is speaking to you on even ground is a step forward. It was only mere months ago that I wasn't even able to legally get married in my state. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:41, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
You have always been legally permitted to get married in your state but that has nothing to do with the topic at hand, like most of your polemic. The feminist perspective is relevant to covering the term. The male rights movement is also relevant to covering the term too. In fact you will hardly ever see the phrase used outside of these two spheres of activism, so to say one or the other or both are not relevant is simply nonsense. The issue here is that female privilege is not synonymous with the male rights movement! Equating female privilege with male rights is as absurd as equating male privilege with feminism. You haven't made an argument for retaining the redirect based on notability or usage, so most of what you have said actually has little bearing on whether the redirect is kept or not. All you have succeeded in doing is making the discussion rather boring to read through. Betty Logan (talk) 06:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Please WP:NPA. I didn't know User:CoffeeWithMarkets was a transperson and it doesn't matter that I now do: all I know is that CoffeeWith is a well-informed contributor to WP:RfD, even when I disagree with him or her (my own foible, I refuse to use "they"/"them" as singular: and if someone wishes to call himself or herself a transperson then I will jump through hoops to respect that if they respect my love of English as she is spoke). Si Trew (talk) 06:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as WP:RFD#D2 confusing. A woman's privilege is to go through doors first, for a man to give up his seat (i.e. him being a gentleman), and to change her mind (although that is more a woman's prerogative). That is not a female privilege, but a woman's privilege: the same gentlemen's rules do not extend to girls (female human children), for example. These customs of manners are of course are constantly changing and I am too old-fashioned to change mine; why should a man take off his hat when he goes into a room but a woman not, for example? Etiquette covers it broadly, but all I've suggested would be WP:SURPRISEing, I think. Not only humans are female, anyway. It's a female "privilege" to be a Queen ant or Queen bee, for example. The word "privilege" is not WP:RNEUTRAL. Si Trew (talk) 06:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep as it is relevant to its target, and redirects are not always required to be neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rubbish computer (talkcontribs) 11:42, 26 August 2015‎ (UTC)
  • Comment: I am not influenced by this topic in making this decision, I simply feel it is a plausible search term, regardless of whether or not female privilege actually exists. Rubbish computer 11:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Whether or not female privilege exists in the real world is irrelevant here, what matters is that it exists as a term and that we have encyclopaedic content related to the term. The redirect currently points to the best information we have about it, so that people looking for information can find it. That the information we have could be better than it is is not relevant to the redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 12:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - it is not a synonym for women's rights, it is a bullshit phrase used by men's rights activists to attack the women's rights movement. It points to exactly where it should. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - it directs to the only place it is currently mentioned in the encyclopedia, and that appears to be how the phrase is used. Rights isn't synonymous with privilege.Godsy(TALKCONT) 07:26, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

4,500,000,000 B.C.[edit]

Delete, this is a nonsense year. Gregorian calendar years only correlate on a human scale. Any older than that and you'd have to use the geologic time scale. For example, you would say that the Age of the Earth is 4.57 Ga, but it'd be nonsense to use the year 4,500,000,000 B.C. The article doesn't use this terminology so I don't see why the redirect would. (One other minor point on why this redirect is incorrect: years don't use commas.) The redirect is also unhelpful because it assumes someone using it would have to already know approximately the age of the earth. Other things have also happened around that time period, so it's potentially ambiguous (although I would assume the formation of the Earth to be the most notable thing to happen around that "year".)-- Tavix (talk) 16:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep as it seems plausible that this could be associated with it. Rubbish computer 20:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
@Tavix: Somebody could recall the year and forget the event, but it appears this is implausible. Rubbish computer 11:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per Tavix. This is a nonsense year, as undue accuracy? The age of the earth anyway is as any fule kno, 4004 BC at 3pm in the afternoon, according to the Usher Chronology. There is an old joke that the brontosaur in the atrium of the London Natural History Museum was dated as "12 million years and three weeks old" (to cut the joke short, and spoil it), and when asked by the patron how he could date it so, said "it was twelve million years old when I started here, and..." Si Trew (talk) 20:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Unlikely to be searched for in this manner using the Anno Domini year numbering system especially incorrectly using commas.Godsy(TALKCONT) 20:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Correctly using commas in English, that is WP:ENGVAR orWP:DIFFPUNC. Dots would be more likely in a European system to separate thousands, but I see no thousands unsepareted here. The Systeme Internationale mandates spaces between thousands (103), which nobody uses. Trust me, I'm an engineer. Ask User:Jimp who is the master of Template:Convert and has been for as long as I have been here. Si Trew (talk) 21:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough, the comma part has been striken.Godsy(TALKCONT) 21:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Tu quoquo, striking mine saying it is Engvar, cos it's not. I am used to having commas as decimal points ( → decimal mark) and dots to separate thousands. That article refers in a hatnote to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Decimal points. Si Trew (talk) 07:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as appears implausible. Rubbish computer 11:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep this figure does get a lot of use in many and varying sources, according to google. The redirect also gets traffic, which oddly seems to go in bursts, very little in August or the second half of July, but a busy start to that month and over a hundred hits in some months. The redirect is harmless and the target correct, so I'm struggling to find any benefits to deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 12:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per Thryduulf, because I can't think that it could possibly refer to anything else, even though it's not accurate by any calendar. If the age of the earth (according to our article) is 4.54B years and we drop 2015 years (since the birth of Jesus) and there is no year zero, then ... does this account for leap years? ... actually screw it: even within the precision given, it should be 4,540,000,000 B.C., which this redirect is off of by forty million years. Although that is within the 50-million-year confidence interval, so I guess it's close enough? Maybe it's a plausible misspelling? Anyway I don't see the harm in keeping it. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
@Ivanvector: So let me get this straight: you want to keep a horribly inaccurate redirect because it's "close enough"? Yes, that's harmful. There isn't such thing as a year like this. At least with most {{R from incorrect name}}, that incorrect name is at least mentioned or described... -- Tavix (talk) 16:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
@Tavix: Close! What I'm saying is it's inaccurate but not horribly so. If it pointed to, say, Fall of the Western Roman Empire, then it would be horribly incorrect. However, on reconsidering this, if we assume it's meant as a search for a thing that happened 4.5 billion years ago, then there are a large number of possible targets since this is the approximate age of the solar system, and many things happened within a few million years of this date. Formation and evolution of the Solar System might be an ok target, but given the confusion and the nonstandard format, may be best to delete. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for the clarification. That makes more sense to me now. -- Tavix (talk) 17:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Walter James Palmer(Dentist)[edit]

Delete as an implausible search term for three reasons: 1) there isn't a space between the actual title and the disambiguator and there should be, 2) "dentist" isn't a proper noun and shouldn't be capitalized, 3) Walter Palmer doesn't go by his middle name, so the average reader wouldn't know what it is. -- Tavix (talk) 16:35, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom: with one or two of these it could be a plausible search term, but not with all three. Rubbish computer 20:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Delete. WP:NOTNEWS. But where does Walter Palmer go? It goes to a DAB which does mention him as it last entry to the entry at Cecil (lion). This says something about how we hate people more than furry animals a long way away (you would not like one in your back yard).
But never trust a Palmer (surname) (or a Palmist). I seem to remember Dr. Palmer a serial murderer in the first decade of the twentieth century, I think defended by Edward Marshall-Hall who is now obliterated from my search from some idiot having a potshot at a cat. This is WP:NOTNEWS, I repeat. The spacing is odd, the caps in the parens is not. Walter Palmer (dentist) and Walter Palmer (Dentist) are red. When I hear the word "revolver" I reach for my culture. Si Trew (talk) 20:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • delete. I don't actually see the nominator's reason 2 as meriting deletion and were that the only one given I'd !vote to keep. Reason 3 on it's own is borderline. Reason 1 however is a reason to delete in most cases, and combined with the other two means this is not a good redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 12:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • All I'm saying is that all three issues combined makes this implausible. -- Tavix (talk) 15:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - As is stated above, the fellow generally goes by "Walter Palmer". As well, it's rather odd to see the capitalized term 'Dentist' used as if its an inherited title or something ('Dark Lord Sauron', 'Sith Lord Vader', 'Emperor Palpatine', and 'Dentist Walter Palmer'?) too. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - regardless of the other issues and how it is disambiguated, the spacing is incorrect.Godsy(TALKCONT) 07:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

M word[edit]

Delete per WP:RFD#D2 confusing, not at target (nor in any caps or hyphenated variation). No links except from this discussion and one in user space; stats are at about one hit a month (stats for target are around 1600 a day). Si Trew (talk) 11:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Nope, just threw it out as a suggestion. Si Trew (talk) 05:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • comment this is an example of Euphemism#Phonetic modification and so that might be a good target, but only "F word", "S word" and "B word" are given as examples there, and I'm not seeing much use of "M world" ("T word" gets far more use for example). Thryduulf (talk) 12:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - I went through all of these "<letter> word" redirects a couple weeks ago, and now I can't remember why I didn't nominate this one. My search results give many more results for motherhood versus marriage, but I don't think either one makes a useful redirect, and can't think of any others. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Physible[edit]

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

  • Disambiguate per nom, with the disambiguation including a Wiktionary link. --Rubbish computer 14:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Soft redirect to wikt:physible pending the creation of an article or keep as a second choice because the status quo actually describes the term. Oppose disambiguation because no other entries besides the current one would pass WP:DABMENTION. -- Tavix (talk) 16:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Now that I think about it a little more, I think I prefer keeping over soft redirecting. It's better to keep people at Wikipedia if we can and the current target explains the term. -- Tavix (talk) 17:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
The term doesn't have anything to do with TPB directly, other than them being the originator of it. A printable 3D model that I've downloaded from anywhere else or that I've created wholly myself could also be called "a physible", without TPB being involved. Don Cuan (talk) 03:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I understand that. However, unless we create an article about it, I'm not seeing a better solution. -- Tavix (talk) 12:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
From WP:NOUN: "Adjective and verb forms (e.g. democratic, integrate) should redirect to articles titled with the corresponding noun (Democracy, Integration)"...
""Physible", if it meant anything, and the context in the article makes it clear, would be an adjective, thus "a physible" would be like saying "a black" or "an automated" or "an inflatable". While of course we often do so in English, we do so with an unwritten noun (a black person or ball, an inflatable boat or toy) which often can only be distinguished by context and stand meaningless as titles in themselves. Si Trew (talk) 05:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
It's not a misspelling of anything, it's a neologism (with WP:NEO being the strongest argument against it) derived from "physical" and "able". It's intended to mean that a file containing a 3D model is able to be turned into a physical object through 3D printing and comparable methods. Its use as a noun can indeed be compared to "an inflatable" and both are perfectly acceptable grammatically. In fact, this one seems to be used primarily as a noun. Don Cuan (talk) 03:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Imagine (song)[edit]

With the move of the John Lennon song to Imagine (John Lennon song), this redirect should target the disambiguation page at Imagine per WP:INCDAB. I considered just changing the target per WP:BOLD, but with the issues that the various Beatles songs have had in relation to WP:PRIMARY, I figured it was best to start this discussion. (Note: there were only four incoming article links to Imagine (song), which have been retargeted to Imagine (John Lennon song)) -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 05:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Retarget to dab, per nom WP:PRECISE ambiguous disambiguation is a bad idea. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Imagine. This threw me, somehow the wrong existing target got listed here (i.e. jut Imagine); @Niceguyedc: I hope you don't mind my amending this listing. It's been at that target pretty much since creation, except for a few hours on 2 September 2014 (diff here) and before that with a move discussion around the end of August. It hasn't changed since this discussion started. Si Trew (talk) 11:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
    • @SimonTrew: Not a problem. I listed this like a move discussion, where you list what you are proposing instead of the current situation. -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 11:23, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I'd assumed you used Twinkle or something to list it, which confused me more: I guess you did it manually. No problem here either, thanks for making WP better. Si Trew (talk) 18:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to dab. I notice I made this change after performing the move last year but was reverted the same day. Jenks24 (talk) 12:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
@Jenks24: I noticed that too (the August 2014 change). but it didn't actually sit at Imagine except for a few hours on 2 September, with this edit. . Si Trew (talk) 12:35, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Err, didn't it? Jenks24 (talk) 12:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
At 13.17 on 20 August 2014 the title Imagine (John Lennon song) became a redirect as a result of your quite valid move, after discussion. At 13.23, you redirected it to Imagine#Songs. At 22:49 that day, User:Rlendog retargeted it to Imagine (John Lennon song). I said above "and before that with a move discussion around the end of August". I just considered that a three-point turn as part of a page move and not worth going into the details, my fault. Si Trew (talk) 18:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to dab per above. --Rubbish computer 14:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:PRIMARY, which is a recognized exception within WP:PRECISE. There is only one other song titled "Imagine" that has an article, and that song has infinitely less notability than John Lennon's. Rlendog (talk) 17:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per Rlendog. Personally, I think the song should be at the title Imagine (song), but I don't care enough to fight the status quo. -- Tavix (talk) 18:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per Rlendog. I'm positive I typed this exact rationale yesterday, but it's not here or in the history. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Lhati[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Retarget to Lahti. (non-admin closure) Godsy(TALKCONT) 23:37, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:FORRED; word from a language that I currently cannot identify that seems to not be used in English context. However, it is close in spelling to Lahti. Steel1943 (talk) 04:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Lahti? That looks like the most helpful option. From searching for details about the term, it seems to mostly show up as a typo either in reference to the city or the various weapons associated with Aimo Lahti (or him, himself). CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Lahti per nom as plausible misspelling --Lenticel (talk) 05:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Lahti per above. --Rubbish computer 14:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Food library[edit]

Not mentioned at target, and from what I am finding via search engines, this is probably a WP:NOTWIKIA violation. This was apparently a made-up phrase used in the series Metalocalypse to represent the equivalent of a grocery. Other than that, I am not finding any evidence of the phrase's use. Steel1943 (talk) 01:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Rubbish computer 02:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete not a synonym or subtopic; Wikipedia is not a glossary for fictional terms -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. If a grocery is a food library, when and how does the food get returned? Si Trew (talk) 11:23, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
...In their deposit box; however, what they call a "deposit box", most people call a "toilet". Steel1943 (talk) 17:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I see, they WP:PIPE it. Si Trew (talk) 18:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - This redirect isn't helpful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Note that Seed libraries do exist. Not a good retargeting option, however, since what you're "checking out" is indeed seeds and not actual food (I doubt seed libraries "lend" things like ready-to-eat sunflower seeds). As the article notes, with a seed library, a patron could grow a plant and return seeds. I really don't want to think what that would look like at a "food library". --BDD (talk) 20:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Pearl Bowling Center[edit]

Not mentioned in target article. Most search engine results I receive are about either a business in Budapest or a business in Manila. Steel1943 (talk) 00:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete as there appears to be no suitable target. Rubbish computer 02:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - This seems like directing 'Steve's Fishing Business' to 'Fishing' or something like that. The redirect isn't helpful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as possible WP:PROMO violation --Lenticel (talk) 05:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:REDLINK if it is prominent enough it should be an article, if not, it should not exist, as it is not a proper subtopic of the target article -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. The one in Budapest is actually "Perl Harbor Bowling Center" (odd name really) and is in no way notable AFAICT from pearlharbor.hu/bowling(Hungarian)... I've been past it a few times recently when looking for houses. Si Trew (talk) 11:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Comment. When I said "odd name really" I wasn't thinking of the WP:ENGVAR just knocking out the whole lot in one strike... a bit odd a name for it, but that's how it is... Si Trew (talk) 22:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Gutter cleaning[edit]

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

  • I could see Gutter vacuum or Gutter sucker redirecting there, but not the nominated redirect. This redirect could give the reader the idea that they are going to locate a concept, not a piece of equipment. Steel1943 (talk) 17:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I've been casting around as well. Street sweeper? But three regulars have three variants, so perhaps Convert to DAB. I'll make a draft for your consideration. Si Trew (talk) 21:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
At Draft:Gutter cleaning. The first three I can source, the last I am trying hard to but this is in the way. Si Trew (talk) 21:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I may have been led up the garden path here. "Gutter sucker" is a good tongue-twister though; fortunately I have only to type it. Si Trew (talk) 21:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I'd be happy with either that dab or the retarget I suggested above. Thryduulf (talk) 12:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Big Brother 2 (2015)[edit]

No indication in the target article Big Brother 17 (U.S.), that this referred to as Big Brother 2 (2015) Whpq (talk) 00:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, as there appears to be no suitable target. Rubbish computer 02:12, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • 'Delete Nowhere on the target is the title "Big Brother 2" mentioned. --Tzvi_Katowitz (talk) 03:04, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Big Brother Angola (season 2). This is the only season 2 of a show called Big Brother to happen in 2015, Big Brother 2 notes that many season 2s are referred to as "Big Brother 2". A hatnote can optionally be provided to HaAh HaGadol VIP 2 (Hebrew: האח הגדול VIP 2‎; lit. The Big Brother VIP 2), the only other Big Brother season 2 of any sort to happen in 2015, but it doesn't go by this name in English it seems. Thryduulf (talk) 14:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Nice find. However, I see a huge WP:ASTONISH-ment issue for the majority of English-speaking readers if the nominated redirect is retargeted there... Steel1943 (talk) 17:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

August 24[edit]

Watching paint dry[edit]

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

  • Comment I'm okay with soft retarget as well --Lenticel (talk) 05:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
But if the consensus has changed so that now "anything not in Wikipedia but in Wiktionary should be soft redirected thence" then we should say so. I think we need a rationale stronger than "Wiktionary explains the meaning" (appropriately or not); something that more closely justifies its inclusion in an encyclopaedia. Si Trew (talk) 12:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Soft redirect. Soft redirects to Wiktionary should be used where all of the following are true:
    • There is no scope for an encyclopaedia article at this title
    • There is no other Wikipedia page to which this would be an appropriate redirect.
    • There is a relevant entry in Wiktionary
    • People do, or are likely to, search for the term on Wikipedia.
    In my view all of these criteria are met in this case, and so we should soft redirect. The "keep being re-created and re-deleted" language is years out of date. Thryduulf (talk) 14:23, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Soft redirect per Thryduulf, who painted a beautiful picture of when to use a Wiktionary soft redirect. This is exactly what I've thought about the subject but never seen it put in words before. If you don't mind, I've WP:BOLDLY added that description to {{Wiktionary redirect}}. From my experience here, this seems to fall in line with consensus and is a lot better than what was there before (which basically said that it's used due to previous recreations, which is not true.) Message/ping me if you disagree and we'll talk. -- Tavix (talk) 19:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
    • I certainly don't disagree with that course of action - far from it! Thryduulf (talk) 20:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, I thought that was obvious, sorry. I'm fine with the A3 too, because I don't think Wiktionary redirects should be speedy-able unless the entry doesn't exist, which would then be G8. RFD should be able to handle it anyway. If someone disagrees, they're definitely welcome to challenge it. I'm just trying to be transparent with the "change". -- Tavix (talk) 01:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, I agree with both Thryduulf's critera and Tavix' adding them to the doc. It's a bit of an oligarchichal add, but then, we must go with the silent majority really. What I wanted to do was discourage just "any word I ever heard of" being added to Wikipedia, and in particular to EN:WP, because Wiktionary has a different way of organising different languages, which can make things confusing. May I suggest (or boldly do) one small change: "Should be used where all of the following are true" -> "Should be used only when". But the points are well made so I agree, Soft redirect in this case. And thanks for all, for the thought put into formulating this guideline. Si Trew (talk) 07:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I have done a bit of ce over at the doc. I should be pleased if y'all could cast your eye over my revisions there. Just to tighten, not to make any substantive change, in particular, I have not changed Thryduulf's wording of the four points above, and also I have put it into Category:Redirect templates which may be wrong as that maybe should be on the page itself rather than the docinclu. I made a couple of edits here at RfD to make this discussion into a collapse box, but undid those, because it's intermingled with the discussion about this particular redirect. Si Trew (talk) 07:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I've moved (with cut and paste) the discussion over at WP:NOT to here at WT:RFD#Does WP:NOT apply to redirects?. I should be pleased if y'all would contribute there. Si Trew (talk) 08:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Soft redirect to wikt:watch paint dry per Godsy, and per recent similar discussions on well-known English-language idioms which resulted in the same action. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

South Buckhead (disambiguation)[edit]

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

  • Delete - it's a double redirect, and since the ambiguity which the dab page was trying to solve has been resolved, there's no point keeping this. Stats are zero. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Stats are zero because it was created 3 days ago. -- Tavix (talk) 21:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Huh. Why is there a bot that creates redirects to disambiguation pages? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 01:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
The nominator erased the disambiguation page formerly at South Buckhead, which existed from 2012 to 2015. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
...The ones that end with "(disambiguation)"? It's because ... so we don't have to. However, a "false positive" happens when the disambiguation page later is no longer a disambiguation page, such as this situation. It happens. Steel1943 (talk) 19:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not a disambiguation. -- Tavix (talk) 21:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per above reasons. Rubbish computer 02:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - As stated above, the redirect isn't helpful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

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

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

  • Speedy close since no rationale has been presented, no suggested action has been presented, the other discussion has yet to close, and the only statement in this nomination is similar to an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. Otherwise, (Statement no longer valid.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC) Keep since the redirect is unambiguous, and since WP:TITLELENGTH states that the title cannot be any longer than this. Steel1943 (talk) 22:52, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
So you are calling every other good-faith editor in this discussion irrational? THat is not nice. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonTrew (talkcontribs) 22:47, 10 August 2015‎ (UTC)
  • Keep. If a reader copies and pastes the exact, actual title of the work in the search box, this is what Wikipedia will search for, and the reader will be taken to the correct article. bd2412 T 01:23, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Not true. If you copy and paste the entire thing into the search box, you get search results which list the article containing the text, but not taken to the article directly. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:53, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Delete. Your rationale presented, sir, is WP:CONCISE (a subsection of WP:TITLE) - Steel1943 is hoist with his own petard (oh we don't have that WP:QUOTATION) for something sorry wife walked in entirely forgot what he is hoist with. As if anyone knows what a petard is, anyway. Si Trew (talk) 10:21, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Comment. There is no need for keeping full quotes, we are not WikiQuote; WP:NOTQUOTE; and having it hinders any external search from finding that quotation. But my train of thought is still boarding at the station so I strike my delete to leave as a comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonTrew (talkcontribs) 10:21, 9 August 2015
  • Delete - per my point above, this does not function as a redirect for the full title. It is not useful unless a person searching knows exactly what the character limit is on searches, and so is not helpful to navigation. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:53, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Why does it matter whether the person searching knows exactly what the character limit is? If that person pastes in a title ten or twenty or fifty characters longer, won't the search be truncated automatically to this length? bd2412 T 15:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Not for me, I get search results, but I've just pinged Tavix who got an error message instead. Is it truncated for you? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  • When you use Wikipedia's search function, you get search results, but if you search using the address bar (ie: editing the URL), it'll give you an error message: "The requested page title is too long. It must be no longer than 255 bytes in UTF-8 encoding." It just depends how you search. -- Tavix (talk) 15:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I would say that if it depends how you search, and this matches the result for some way of searching, then it is potentially useful. bd2412 T 23:25, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  • It does seem to depend on how you search, but there is only one permutation out of 445 which produces the article, discounting spelling errors. The other 444 produce either search results or an error message, depending on how they're accessed. If search results are useful for 444 variations, they are useful for the other one too. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - plausible search term, argument for deletion seems to rely on the factually incorrect premise that users reading an internet encyclopaedia won't hit it's technical limitation in number of characters. WilyD 09:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Not quite, my argument is that users reading an internet encyclopedia won't know what the technical limit is exactly, and are unlikely to type this exact phrase with it in mind. It's entirely possible to continue typing in the search box when your search is over the character limit. If they get one character wrong or enter one character too many, they don't get the article they're looking for. They might get search results, but they would get search results anyway, so this redirect isn't serving any purpose. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 21:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep as harmless. I've read all the arguments above, and I'm still none the wiser about what problem deleting this is attempting to solve. In some months this gets a clearly human level of traffic, so it also appears useful to at least some people. Thryduulf (talk) 23:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - per this precedent and WP:R#D8. Redirects should be useful, not necessarily what is technically possible. Not reasonably likely to be searched for this way.Godsy(TALKCONT) 21:04, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete it's a useless redirect, a partial search will get a user close enough to the actual article. We can have redirects of entire sonnets at this rate. Hmph! Montanabw(talk) 20:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

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

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

  • Speedy close since no rationale has been presented, no suggested action has been presented, the other discussion has yet to close, and the only statement in this nomination is similar to an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. Otherwise, (Statement no longer valid.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC) Keep since the redirect is unambiguous, and since WP:TITLELENGTH states that the title cannot be any longer than this. Steel1943 (talk) 22:52, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. If a reader copies and pastes the exact, actual title of the work in the search box, this is what Wikipedia will search for, and the reader will be taken to the correct article. bd2412 T 01:25, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Remark - this isn't the exact, actual title of the work, it's truncated due to software limitations. A redirect from the complete title would obviously be a keeper; I'm not sure about an arbitrarily truncated one. -- Schneelocke (talk) 10:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
      • I'm not saying this is the exact actual title, I'm saying that if someone pastes the exact actual title into the search bar, Wikipedia will automatically search for this truncated version. bd2412 T 16:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
          • And so would any other search engine. So, in effect, this hinders rather than helps a search. Si Trew (talk) 19:18, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per BD2412's point. --Rubbish computer 01:32, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - plausible search term (indeed, the cut-off may be from software limitations, but readers encounter those limits - they're not Gods (at least, many aren't). As noted, no rationale for any action (or potential action) has been suggested, so it's hard to say anything other than "seems fine". WilyD 16:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per my comments above and in the older Rfd mentioned by the nominator. In order for this redirect to be useful, a user must know exactly how many characters can be typed into a URL or the search box. The search box does not truncate: if all 252 characters are not typed in this exact combination, or if any more or less characters are typed, the user misses the redirect and gets search results instead. This redirect cuts off mid-sentence; it's extremely unlikely that any reader would ever search for this exact phrase. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:53, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per The Earwig's closing rationale at the aforementioned RFD. This redirect is just like the other one, and I feel like it should suffer the same fate. -- Tavix (talk) 23:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:31, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - same problem as this precedent (which I just noticed Tavix already mentioned). Redirects should be useful, not necessarily what is technically possible. Delete per WP:R#D8 and Ivanvector above.Godsy(TALKCONT) 21:04, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per my comments above. Deleting this will not improve Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 23:19, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "Delete': Highly unlikely search and not likely that someone typing in a long title won't have a typo or two anyway, thus defeating the redirect. Montanabw(talk) 20:31, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. I checked last night in my woodware copy and the fronticepiece has a far longer title even than if one extended this to the full sentence, so this is not even {{R from full name}} even with what was said above. To avoid error: "Surprizing" is spelled thus, even in British English versions, there's no WP:ENGVAR here. (see -ize). The title in my Everyman cheapo is:
Si Trew (talk) 09:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

When is Christmas?[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. --BDD (talk) 20:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Thanks. I wouldn't have "invoked" it if I didn't read it. My comment about "Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not" referring to Wikipedia "as a whole" still stands. Anyone can debate the interpretation of that page in discussion (as apparently, we are doing here). If you want to invalidate any part of WP:WWIN to not apply to specific aspects of Wikipedia, feel free to start a discussion on its talk page. However, it looks like the discussion about specifically restricting WP:NOTFAQ from applying to redirects (on WP:WWIN's talk page) is approaching a WP:SNOW oppose close. Steel1943 (talk) 16:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
If you had read NOTFAQ, you would have discovered that it's unambiguously inapplicable here, in a way that no one who had read it could miss. There's no need to apply a footnote to it say it doesn't apply to redirects, any more than there's a need to apply a footnote to WP:CSD#G12 saying it doesn't apply to redirects. The substance of what it says makes it entirely unambiguous that it cannot. So, again, I implore you to read NOTFAQ before invoking it. WilyD 09:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ and Steel1943. Not elaborating on each individually as so many have been listed of this type on this date.Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - plausible search term, no rationale has been presented for deletion. I'm a little surprised this isn't it's own article yet, though I don't think redlinking to encourage creation is warrented. It'll spin out in it's own time. WilyD 16:38, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:28, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per unambiguous consensus that redirect titles are encyclopedic content covered by What Wikipedia is not, and pages should not be titled as though Wikipedia is a question-and-answer site. (striking per discussion 15:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)) Were these a combined nomination that was individually relisted? Some of us seem to be repeating the same arguments verbatim. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Of course, Wikipedia will still answer the question of When is Christmas, we'll just be rude assholes to the readership first. So that argument doesn't seem applicable. WilyD 10:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Despite having struck my comment, I would prefer not to have been called a "rude asshole", especially when you could have just said "inconsiderate grinch". Then we could have all had a good chuckle. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep as unambiguously harmless and unambiguously useful, directly and indirectly (by assisting search engines to answer natural language queries). Regardless of the consensus at that RFC (of which I was unaware), I fail to see how a page that starts "Wikipedia articles should not read like:" could be at reasonably interpreted to refer to anything that is not an article, such as a redirect. "Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not an instruction manual, guidebook, or textbook." also completely fails to have any relevance to redirects that enable people to find the encyclopaedic reference they were looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 23:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
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.

How old is the Earth?[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. --BDD (talk) 20:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

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

  • Delete WP:NOTFAQ -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, plausible search term, leads to relevant information. Siuenti (talk) 06:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ.Godsy(TALKCONT) 07:38, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ. --Rubbish computer 12:33, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Compassionate727 (talk) 13:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. WP:NOTFAQ applies to articles, not redirects. While it is not the most common practice, redirecting a common question with an unambiguous answer to the article that contains that answer meets none of the deletion criteria for redirects and does aid searches and prove useful to someone. Remember that redirects are WP:CHEAP. ~ RobTalk 14:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep as being a plausible search term. A redirect is not a FAQ, WP:NOTFAQ does not apply to redirects, and none of the reasons for deleting redirects listed under WP:RFD#DELETE applies here.  --Lambiam 20:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep plausible search. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:22, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ, which, along with any other statement on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, can be applied to Wikipedia as a whole, including redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Please read NOTFAQ before invoking it. It's quite clear that it only applies to how articles are laid out. The claim that it can be applied to "Wikipedia as a whole, including redirects" is untrue. WilyD 16:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I wouldn't have "invoked" it if I didn't read it. My comment about "Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not" referring to Wikipedia "as a whole" still stands. Anyone can debate the interpretation of that page in discussion (as apparently, we are doing here). If you want to invalidate any part of WP:WWIN to not apply to specific aspects of Wikipedia, feel free to start a discussion on its talk page. However, it looks like the discussion about specifically restricting WP:NOTFAQ from applying to redirects (on WP:WWIN's talk page) is approaching a WP:SNOW oppose close. Steel1943 (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
If you had read NOTFAQ, you would have discovered that it's unambiguously inapplicable here, in a way that no one who had read it could miss. There's no need to apply a footnote to it say it doesn't apply to redirects, any more than there's a need to apply a footnote to WP:CSD#G12 saying it doesn't apply to redirects. The substance of what it says makes it entirely unambiguous that it cannot. So, again, I implore you to read NOTFAQ before invoking it. WilyD 09:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - plausible search term, no argument has been advanced for deletion. WilyD 09:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Note: I've combined these two very similar items, which had near-identical vote breakdowns and discussion. --BDD (talk) 22:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
@BDD: You've left my delete !vote in there twice.Godsy(TALKCONT) 07:12, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
@BDD: Actually it appears to be my error, I'm fairly certain, after reviewing the history. I'm going to go ahead and fix it.Godsy(TALKCONT) 07:19, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per unambiguous consensus that redirect titles are encyclopedic content covered by What Wikipedia is not, and pages should not be titled as though Wikipedia is a question-and-answer site. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC) striking per discussion 15:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia will still answer the question of how the the Earth is, so it'll continue to function exactly as much as a question and answer site as it was before. The only difference is that if we delete this redirect, we'll be treated the readership with contempt. Is that what we want? WilyD 10:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep for the same reasons I express above at #When is Christmas? - i.e. this unambiguously useful and unambiguously harmless. Thryduulf (talk) 23:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete... it's not useful, unless you want to abandon WP:NOUN as a policy. Questions are not nouns. Si Trew (talk) 13:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
    • WP:NOUN relates explicitly to article titles, and redirects are not articles (otherwise we'd be at AfD). One of the reasons redirects exist is to enable readers who are not familiar with our titling policies and guidelines to find the content they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 14:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
      • I disagree I think WP:NOUN has applications at RfD. WP:ACRONYMTITLE for example (which the guideline describes and links to for further info): A title like AJAR (African journal) should be avoided if at all possible. If the acronym and the full name are both in common use, both pages should exist, with one redirecting to the other (or as a disambiguation page). I've used that as a rationale for deletion at RfD before, and I interpret its principles to apply to the redirect namespace (meaning that titles like "AJAR (African journal)" shouldn't generally exist even as a redirect). Naming conventions shouldn't be abandoned within this extension (i.e. the redirect namespace) of, if not part of, the article namespace.Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Hot chicks[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. --BDD (talk) 20:04, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

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

  • Keep - seems to direct readers to what they're looking for. Nominator doesn't suggest any action, nor does their statement suggest anything should be done. WilyD 09:10, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per RfD#D5, as this appears a plausible search term. Rubbish computer 11:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. A double dose of informal slang. A young bird, especially one newly hatched, having a high degree of heat or a high temperature? Nope. Hot men and Hot women are acceptable perhaps, this isn't.Godsy(TALKCONT) 06:14, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:01, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - I'm with Godsy's rationale, but I don't think it's all that confusing really, but not all that useful as a redirect either. Stats show that it's being used, though not much. It's probably mostly harmless. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:20, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Unlikely in the extreme that a searcher would actually be seeking the scientific analysis of the concept, though I will confess that the "instant karma" aspect of the redirect does have a certain amusement value. But I agree that Wikipedia isn't a dating site, it's not a porn site, it's not Bomis, WP is not a scrapbook (no clue what this search pulls up at Commons) and we don't use this as a navigational category. No search on this term is actually going to bring up any photo of the sort the searcher is probably seeking. Montanabw(talk) 16:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
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.

Finite module[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. --BDD (talk) 20:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

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

In that case, keeping the redirect and adding a "see also" sounds like a good solution, assuming the finitely generated module meaning is dominant. mathrick (talk) 11:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 02:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Godsy(TALKCONT) 04:48, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Huh? so we want a see also section with a circular redirect?. Si Trew (talk) 13:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
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.

Q word[edit]

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

Maybe the last part of "thank" (k) and you? as in "ten Q"? – Paine  11:39, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak disambiguate - could this also refer to Queer? --Rubbish computer 12:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Maybe, but I didn't see any results for it. To search, I googled "the q word" (no quotes) and got a page that was only results for the usage I suggested, discounting a couple of links to Scrabble cheating sites which come up in the same spot in search results for any "the [letter] word" search. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:46, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, no prominent usage of the term, and it isn't mentioned in any of the suggested targets. -- Tavix (talk) 14:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per Tavix. --BDD (talk) 22:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak retarget to Mind your Ps and Qs#Origin theories. Si Trew (talk) 09:41, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • retarget to Word (computer architecture)#Size families where Qword redirects. "QWORD" is mentioned in that section. Thryduulf (talk) 10:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, in absence of a clear target it is best if we throw up a search page. —Kusma (t·c) 12:12, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Nom comment - Thryduulf's solution seems best out of all of these. At least, it's the only one which actually discusses what the "Q word" is (or rather, what a QWORD is). The others, including mine, are fairly speculative. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Thryduulf. Montanabw(talk) 16:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

T word[edit]

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

  • Retarget to Twat per nom. --Rubbish computer 12:40, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete both as vague. My results show this referring to taxes, tit, twat, and transgender/transsexual/tranny, none of which are primary or prominent (which would make disambiguating weird, IMO). -- Tavix (talk) 03:20, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete both per Tavix. --BDD (talk) 22:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. We don't have Q-word or T-word. As analogues, we have F word as a DAB to which F-word redirects; C word and C-word both → Cunt; S-wordShit but S word is red. For all of them, WP:NOTDIC is somewhat relevant. Si Trew (talk) 09:36, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment the most notable use I can find is "The T Word" a documentary on MTV. It is mentioned at Laverne Cox#Career - "On October 17, 2014 Laverne Cox Presents: The T Word, an hour-long documentary executive-produced and narrated by Cox, premiered on MTV and Logo simultaneously." That (plus a source) is all we have for it though, so whether it merits a retarget or not I'm not sure. Thryduulf (talk) 11:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I noticed that myself, but the show doesn't seem to be something which meets the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC threshold, especially because we don't have an article about it. Maybe deleting both of these to encourage creation of an article? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 01:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - Things are just too vague. While the most prominent usage of the term is to refer to the slur 'tranny', there's other meanings out there including the specific title of the TV documentary. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. ::I've never heard a transistor radio being referred to as "The T word"; I have no idea what you mean :) The section at DAB Tranny#Society and culture lists Tranny (slang) and under that subheading, several possible meanings. But I would that almost always these expressions are used with the definite article. WP:THE doesn't help much, but perhaps WP:COMMONNAME trumps it. To continue my analogues:
And in addition

Caps forms:

Si Trew (talk) 11:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I had gone through these a little while back (A word, B word etc.) and listed several at Rfd (including this one). I didn't add "the" to any of them though. Is it an issue that (for example) F word and The F word have different targets? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "Delete' no clear target is primary. Montanabw(talk) 16:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Next Greek legislative election[edit]

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

  • Tsipras already dropped the writ (there are several BBC articles on the election, for example). I've found leaving the redirect in place since, for example, my browser is set to find "Next Greek legislative election" more easily (I've been using that link to follow polling for several years, since it always points to whatever the "next" election is, be it this year or next or whatever). So please, leave it in place until the election happens and then "de-direct" it in September.50.206.51.2 (talk) 04:30, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Per the above, the election has already been called [5]. How is it CRYSTALly? -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:41, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
See my comment to User:Thryduulf.Curb Chain (talk) 18:02, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. There are many "Next ... election" redirects, and while consensus about them isn't strong it has generally fallen to keep when they are predictable. When we have a specific article or section on a future election they should point there, when we don't they should point to the article that notes when the next election will be to the degree of precision currently known (e.g. "the next election will take place on or before day month year"). Thryduulf (talk) 11:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Per WP:NOTNEWS #2 (especially) and #4, articles should not be created unless it is enduringly notable. These "Next ... election" redirects are simply being used as a repository of reports until they are "considered" official, as is clear from the rest of these comments. If the article is going to be moved anyway, then it would fail WP:ARTICLETITLE since articles should have the proper title in the first place.Curb Chain (talk) 18:02, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
For elections, you can't have the "[Country] general election, [year]" format used in article titles until the election is assured to be held at a certain date, because otherwise it would fail to meet WP:CRYSTALBALL #1. But also as per CRYSTAL #1, future elections are notable and certain enough to take place at some point to take them into consideration, specially because it is not difficult to find enough relevant information to keep the articles going (Electoral system, opinion polls to be constantly updated, etc). Impru20 (talk) 19:39, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
So is this a problem with the article? I know we aren't discussing the article, but if you take Next Irish general election, it seems to be an WP:indiscriminate repository of information regarding the NEXT Irish general election.Curb Chain (talk) 18:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. No sense for this. Tsipras has resigned, and the legal process that will lead to a snap election in either 20 or 27 September has already started. "Next Greek legislative election" should be keep so that people are redirected to the September election, and once it is held, the article can be re-used for the next election. Impru20 (talk) 11:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:RFD#K5 as this seems useful to the reader: updating these redirects for national elections would not cause much extra work. Rubbish computer 15:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:RFD#D2 since the election it refers to is the current election; the next election is whichever one follows the one next month. Which also helpfully illustrates why we should not create these redirects generally. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:55, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per Ivan. As soon as the election is over, the redirect will be outdated and we'd have to revisit this. Since we're already here, let's just delete it like we've done three times in the past. -- Tavix (talk) 17:39, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
    • As soon as the election is over, this can simply be retargeted per my comment above, without drama or need for any hot air while continuing to provide a way for people to find the content they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 23:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • And that's why we shouldn't have redirects like that. They'll go out of date and require a fair amount of maintenance. Are you volunteering? -- Tavix (talk) 01:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • We don't remove things from articles because they go out of date and require a fair amount of maintenance, and the same principle holds entirely for redirects. Have you got any evidence that these redirects are not being updated when required? Thryduulf (talk) 14:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree with User:Tavix here. It seems to be argued that the redirect should be kept because people are going to find it useful. But it isn't useful because we don't know excatly when the "next" Greek legislative election will be held but we know when it cannot be held after. If we are to maintain a redirect, then create an article, this is simply speculation about the next election.Curb Chain (talk) 18:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @Tavix: there is a fundamental difference between those events and the next Greek (and Spanish) elections: predictability and encyclopaedicness. Legislative and similar elections are predictable and there is always encyclopaedic coverage about the next one. Right after the preceding election that is simply the date it will need to be held by, but this date is known and as the date gets closer the encyclopaedic information grows. Political party leadership elections are not predictable, and there is no encyclopaedic coverage of them possible in advance of them. It is not knowable if there will be another Australian constitutional referendum, if there is what it will be about. Thryduulf (talk) 20:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @Curb Chain: Just because we don't know the exact date does not mean that the redirect is not useful - someone looking up this (or similar) redirects is going to find the answer "on day month year" and "before day month year" equally useful. I say this with confidence as this has been true for me on several occasions in the past, and will continue to be so in the future. As long as we report the answer to the degree of precision reported in reliable sources (which we do, and which is entirely independent of this redirect) the reader is served. Thryduulf (talk) 20:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
As per my comments on the Spanish election section below. Check naming conventions on future election articles in WP:NCGAL. Also, remind you that we are talking about general elections here; that is, the kind of elections that start parliamentary terms and that have a fixed maximum duration. We are certain about when the "next" general/parliamentary/legislative election would be held at latest. Referendums and internal party leadership elections do not abide on those legal rules, since they are elections of a different kind and are, thus, not comparable. It may be decades before a new given referendum or a new leadership election is held, a time-span not measurable not predictable, but we are sure that a new parliamentary election will be held, at most, within a 3, 4 or 5 year period (depending on the country). Impru20 (talk) 11:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, editors need to update but it is a plausible search phrase. No WP:CRYSTAL elements, there will always (most likely) be a "next" election, and where the redirect targets a recently passed election, it could also be retargeted to Elections in Greece if lack of updating is a concern. Montanabw(talk) 16:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
See my reply to you below (Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 24#Next Spanish general election).Curb Chain (talk) 18:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per Ivanvector and Tavix.Godsy(TALKCONT) 07:17, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Next Spanish general election[edit]

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

  • With respect to the Spanish election, though the writ hasn't been dropped I think there are only a handful of extreme scenarios where the election could be any year other than this year (e.g. the potential election period does not spill into 2016). Much as a US Presidential election could, in theory, be moved up under certain narrow circumstances (or the next Olympics cancelled), WP:CRYSTAL doesn't seem applicable w.r.t. the 2015 election. I'd agree if we were talking about the elections after these (which could fall anywhere in the next few years), but the odds of the elections not happening this year seem vanishingly small...so the two labels and the redirect seem appropriate.50.206.51.2 (talk) 04:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per my comments above. Thryduulf (talk) 11:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not WP:CRYSTAL, since legally, it is not possible for the election to not be held in 2015 (20 December would be the last possible date to hold it), unless very exceptional unforeseeable circunstamces happen (war, national emergency, whatever). But assuming the election would be moved up into 2016 of further under those circumstances would be WP:CRYSTAL, since those are not foreseeable in the near future. So, unless those do actually happen the election should be treated just as the US presidential elections or the Olympics are, to be held at the date they are legally expected to. Specially given than Rajoy himself has confirmed that the election will be held "by the end of the year", after the 2016 Budget is passed into law in Congress. "Next Spanish general election" should be kept as a redirect to the 2015 election, and once the election is held it would be used for the election after this year's one. Impru20 (talk) 11:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
If an election is determined to be in a specific year, it should be titled "Spanish general election, [insert year here]". For example, "Next Spanish general election" was moved to "Spanish general election, 2012" and then "Spanish general election, 2012" was moved to ""Spanish general election, 2011".Curb Chain (talk) 18:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
The point is that, in many countries, such as Spain, elections are not determined to be in a specific year. What is determined is the latest possible date the election can be held in the event of no snap election being held earlier. Surely, the one who moved the "Next Spanish general election" article to "Spanish general election, 2012" back when he/she did it shouldn't have done so as per WP:CRYSTAL, since legally the election could have been held in 2011 (as it finally did). In this case, however, we are already in 2015, it is impossible for the election to be held later than 20 December 2015 and Rajoy himself has stated that the election will be held by the end of the year. But the election still has not been held, so it is still the next election, and Wikipedia readers can still search for "Next Spanish general election" in looking for the 2015 election.
Once the election is held, the "Next Spanish general election" article is simply re-used for the next election. Just as it has been done in Wikipedia for many other countries. I see no reason why it should be removed. Impru20 (talk) 19:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
So we should have the one page Spanish general election, 2015 without this redirect, since we know in certainty that it will occur this year because referring to "Spanish general election, 2015" is equally ambiguous as a reader from google could think "next" as to any subsequent "Spanish general election". Another note, I don't think these redirects are being used appropriately.Curb Chain (talk) 19:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Since the 2015 election has not been held yet and the last election held was the 2011 one, from our current viewpoint, at the present, the 2015 election factually still is the "next" election, that has not changed. The only difference being that we know now that it will be held by the end of 2015. The redirects are also used like this to prevent keeping deleting a page that will be created again after the election is held, anyway. And it does not cause any issues. Unspoken policy regarding election-treatment in Wikipedia has been to act like this (such as UK, Portugal, Ireland, Greece, etc), as, out of the diverse solutions available, it is the more workable and useful. Impru20 (talk) 20:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm not understanding this sort of titling of articles. If the election will be held in 2015, then title it Spanish general election, 2015. This prevents confusing. Will there be 2 Spanish general election in 2015? Why not start an article Spanish general election, September 2015 if an upcoming election is held. If another one is held in November, then create Spanish general election, November 2015 when you have the information.Curb Chain (talk) 18:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
It is already titled Spanish general election, 2015, but the Next Spanish general election article would be re-created anyway once the election is held, but until it is held it will still be the "next" election, despite we knowing the date, until the very day it is held. The official article now is the Spanish general election, 2015.
What you propose, however, would definitely be WP:CRYSTAL. Doing that would assume two elections would be held in 2015 (which, in any case, it is legally impossible to happen as of currently with the current timings), when policy is not show the year, and only to show the month if more than one election happens within the same year. For that to happen, however, the second election would have to be called for the same year after the first one, so you can't guess it will happen before the first one does. It is also uncommon in Spain for two general elections to be held close to each other, so it is not a predictable outcome. User:Thryduulf has a point on this issue. Impru20 (talk) 11:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Also check WP:NCGAL, a specific naming convention related to election articles and more specific than WP:TITLE. Impru20 (talk) 11:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:RFD#K5 as this seems useful to the reader: it would not cause much extra work to update these redirects for national elections. Rubbish computer 15:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as it's generally not a good idea to create redirects like this. Once the election is over, we'd have to revisit this redirect since it'll be outdated. I wouldn't nominate a redirect like this unless it already is outdated, but since we're already here, it's best to save us the trouble down the line. -- Tavix (talk) 20:52, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Except we wont have to revisit it, as it can just be retargetted to wherever mention is made of when the then-next election will be. Also, deleting a redirect that is used, useful, harmless and is pointed at the correct and unambiguous target just because it might not be all of those in future is, at best, cutting of your nose to spite your face. Thryduulf (talk) 23:32, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
      • No, it just creates more unnecessary work for us in the future. -- Tavix (talk) 01:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
        • It does create more work, but enabling readers to find the encyclopaedic content they are looking for is as necessary to Wikipedia as writing the encyclopaedic content in the first place (indeed it is rather pointless to write encyclopaedic content if people can't find it). If you suggested removing content from an article on the grounds that it will be out of date in the future, rather people do the work and it gets updated without fuss or complaint - we even have {{update after}} and {{As of}} to help keep track of this. Thryduulf (talk) 14:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
          • Search terms would help people find what they are looking for just as easy without the maintenance. -- Tavix (talk) 15:40, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, same as the Greek redirect above; editors need to update but it is a plausible search phrase. No WP:CRYSTAL elements, there will always (most likely) be a "next" election, and where the redirect targets a recently passed election, it could also be retargeted to Elections in Spain if lack of updating is a concern. Montanabw(talk) 16:29, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Precisely my point. This redirect isn't plausible since we document what exists. We know elections exist. We know when an election will exist. We don't point readers to what we think will exist.Curb Chain (talk) 18:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
What we are doing with redirects such as this is pointing readers to the content they are looking for. We will always know when the next election will be, just to different levels of precision and it is just as valuable and correct to point to "the next election will take place on day month year" as to "the next election will take place on or before day month year", there is no difference in plausibility at all. We are simply pointing to the encyclopaedic distillation of what is said by reliable sources. Thryduulf (talk) 20:41, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
We point readers to the "Next" election because we are 100% sure that a next election will happen some day, and even we may be able to know the latest legal possible date it should be held by looking at legal sources. That is, we are certain that the election will be held before a given date, the only thing missing is the specific date, but not the event itself, which will happen anyway. This isn't WP:CRYSTAL at all. Furthermore, there is a convention on how to name future election articles, as per WP:NCGAL: "For future elections of uncertain date, use a form similar to Next Irish general election." There is no issue at all with this title formatting. Impru20 (talk) 11:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Keep Curb Chain, I still don't understand your point. Let's assume the election happens in December this year and an editor creates the article in January 2016 for the next election. What should the article be called? The answer in line with similar election articles would be Next Spanish general election. It would sit at that title until the election was either called or it became impossible to call the election before the last year of the cycle. At that point, the article would move, and Next Spanish general election would become a redirect again. So what exactly is your problem with that? -Rrius (talk) 18:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per Tavix.Godsy(TALKCONT) 07:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

August 23[edit]

Azala[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 disambiguate. I didn't find as much as I thought I would, so feel free to expand upon the dab if there's something I missed. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 17:59, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Initially a Basque-language redirect to the main page, this now refers to a ancient Babylonian who owned an early clay tablet map. We know nothing else about this person, so it's difficult for me to imagine a reader searching for this and coming out knowing more than they knew when they went in. Furthermore, a search for "Azala" shows a few other usages. I don't think it would be a good candidate for disambiguation, though. --BDD (talk) 21:50, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

  • delete As vague. I can't pin this entry to an article either. It seems that there are a lot literature and video games that use this name. --Lenticel (talk) 01:11, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate. The discussion that led to the current target is at Talk:Main Page/Archive 131#Azala, but it's years out of date. Meanwhile, there seem to be a lot of random things named "Azala", and everything we now about the Babylonian can be summarized in one sentence. I'm willing to bet that the Chrono Trigger character gets the most interest, but it's better to have a dabpage than a confusing redirect or a nonexistent page. It definitely shouldn't be a redirect to the Main Page. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 02:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate per IP. (I was about to say "retarget to Characters of Chrono Trigger#Ayla", but if there is more than one option, then definitely, especially since this character is so minor that it was put into a different character's section on a list.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Godsy(TALKCONT) 21:40, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Brick Tambalin[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. --BDD (talk) 20:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Delete per WP:RTYPO due to the implausible spelling. The character's name is actually Brick Tamland. -- Tavix (talk) 21:42, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Rubbish computer 00:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:RTYPO. It would be easy to confuse the character's name with "Brick Tamblyn" - that would be my guess at a phonetic spelling, and the redirects are other plausible possibilities. There's not likely to be another possible targeting option, so keeping is harmless. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 02:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep per IvanVector, {{R from mispelling}} -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Godsy(TALKCONT) 21:40, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Homs Governorate offensive (July–August 2015)[edit]

Delete, Homs governorate spans thousands of kilometers more than Palmyra, already discussed Talk:Palmyra offensive (July – August 2015)#Al-Qaryatayn — Preceding unsigned comment added by LimitationsAndRestrictions495656778774 (talkcontribs) 18:18, 16 August 2015‎ (UTC)

  • Keep - The east part of the Homs Governorate is still part of the Homs Governorate. No doubt some people will use that title when searching for the offensive, so the redirect should be left behind for them. LightandDark2000 (talk) 19:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete No reliable sources call it as such and per WP policy we stick to common names (which this isn't). EkoGraf (talk) 04:50, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Godsy(TALKCONT) 21:40, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per LightandDark2000. For a redirect it doesn't matter whether a name is official or not, or whether it is common or not, all that is important is whether it is a plausible search term that someone will use to find this article and in this case it is. Thryduulf (talk) 11:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not overly concerned if this phrase doesn't appear in reliable sources. It seems to be a descriptive title (i.e., Wikipedia generated), so I'm more concerned with whether it's accurate and unambiguous. The discussion the nominator links to seems to suggest there was another operation in the Homs Governorate that could be referred to by this name. Is that so? --BDD (talk) 19:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Legislative process[edit]

Delete per WP:REDLINK. This may be an WP:ENGVAR issue, but when I hear "legislative process", I definitely think of the process of making laws, not how legislative bodies may act when doing their work. See, for example, the US Congress page on the legislative process. There are a few other redirects to this page in the same vein, but I thought I'd see how discussion on this one goes before proceeding with them. BDD (talk) 21:04, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Godsy(TALKCONT) 21:40, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

How many spaces after a period[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. --BDD (talk) 19:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a QA site. GZWDer (talk) 05:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete WP:NOTGUIDE -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Rubbish computer 12:40, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Compassionate727 (talk) 13:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. WP:NOTFAQ applies to articles, not redirects. While it is not the most common practice, redirecting a common question with an unambiguous answer to the article that contains that answer meets none of the deletion criteria for redirects and does aid searches and prove useful to someone. Remember that redirects are WP:CHEAP. ~ RobTalk 14:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. I haven't reviewed the guidelines noted above, but people will use this phrase on Wikipedia as not everyone will know that the article is called Sentence spacing, and that title is not intuitive. This redirect/question has probably been typed in online search engines hundreds of thousands of times, if not millions, in the western world. It would be a shame if we removed someone's ability to type that question at Wikipedia and find a useful article. --Airborne84 (talk) 16:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep frequent enough to be useful, which is all a redirect need be. DGG ( talk ) 21:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ, which, along with any other statement on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, can be applied to Wikipedia as a whole, including redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Please read NOTFAQ before invoking it. It's quite clear that it only applies to how articles are laid out. The claim that it can be applied to "Wikipedia as a whole, including redirects" is untrue. WilyD 16:29, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I wouldn't have "invoked" it if I didn't read it. My comment about "Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not" referring to Wikipedia "as a whole" still stands. Anyone can debate the interpretation of that page in discussion (as apparently, we are doing here). If you want to invalidate any part of WP:WWIN to not apply to specific aspects of Wikipedia, feel free to start a discussion on its talk page. However, it looks like the discussion about specifically restricting WP:NOTFAQ from applying to redirects (on WP:WWIN's talk page) is approaching a WP:SNOW oppose close. Steel1943 (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
If you had read NOTFAQ, you would have discovered that it's unambiguously inapplicable here, in a way that no one who had read it could miss. There's no need to apply a footnote to it say it doesn't apply to redirects, any more than there's a need to apply a footnote to WP:CSD#G12 saying it doesn't apply to redirects. The substance of what it says makes it entirely unambiguous that it cannot. So, again, I implore you to read NOTFAQ before invoking it. WilyD 09:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ and Steel1943. Not elaborating on each individually as so many have been listed of this type on this date.Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, plausible search term for an article with a difficult-to-guess title. Siuenti (talk) 12:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per Wily D and Siuenti. This is an unambiguous search term that directs readers to the content they are looking for. It harms nothing and deleting it will bring no benefits, meaning deletion would harm Wikipedia. It's redirects like this one that help search engines interpret natural language queries. WP:NOTFAQ starts "Wikipedia articles should not read like:", and thus clearly does not apply to redirects. Thryduulf (talk) 18:26, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, possible search term, does no harm. Essentially per Siuenti and Thryduulf. —Kusma (t·c) 12:04, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per unambiguous consensus that redirect titles are encyclopedic content covered by What Wikipedia is not, and pages should not be titled as though Wikipedia is a question-and-answer site. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:51, 24 August 2015 (UTC) striking per discussion Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
    • In what way does that justify harming Wikipedia making it harder for people to find our content? Redirects are not articles (otherwise we would be discussing this at AfD not RfD), that guideline does not mention titles at all, and even if it did it talks about encyclopaedic content not guidebooks - this is a pointer to encyclopaedic content and is not a guidebook, instruction manual or anything else the guideline covers. Thryduulf (talk) 00:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry Thryduulf but I think you are in the minority; consensus does seem to be that WP:NOT covers all aspects of the (reader-facing) Wikipedia, including article titles and redirect titles. In a conversation with you not so long ago (within the last few months) I tried to say that to me this means that generally we should follow WP:TITLE "with obvious exceptions for typos, misspellings, {{R from other language}} and so on" – I am sorry I cannot find that conversation – and rightly you said that there would be so many exceptions that such a guideline/policy would be useless. I've narrowed my opinion now to that at least they should usually be WP:NOUN, which should take in all of those "exceptions". (A misspelling of a noun is still a noun, and so on.)
I think to achieve consensus on these we should discuss it at WT:RFD so that we need not all endless repeat arguments. In general, I am with User:Steel1943's and User:Ivanvector's sentiments for these; obviously each must be argued on its merits but I think we have consensus – not unanimous but with a healthy majority – that we should not multiply redirects unnecessarily: doing so, in my opinion, hinders not helps a search. With no hard evidence, it seems to me that the search engine suppresses duplicate redirects, so having extra terms does not help someone realise the article is not what they want before clicking through it (except of course the brief excerpt from the lede of the target): in that sense, a "harmelss" redirect is actually harmful by suppressing possible less-results that may be what someone is searching for.
Suggesting targets at RfD is a bit of a guessing game, which is one reason I enjoy it. I have no knowledge of the search engine tactics though but wouldn't be surprised if it ignored question-clauses at the starts of search terms anyway: which would weaken or negate some of my arguments above. Si Trew (talk) 14:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I suppose my concerns would be assuaged by explicitly tagging these sorts of redirects with {{R unprintworthy}}, or creating an rcat like {{R from frequently asked question}} that would tag unprintworthy within the code. Beyond that, I just don't like them, but that's not a deletion rationale. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:41, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I think that would make sense, except it's not very WP:RNEUTRAL to decide what a frequently asked question is, unless WP has stats on what search terms people try that come up red (i.e. search engine results not an article or via a redirect to it). Were we to do so, I'd favour the {{R from question}} form (specifically not "frequently asked"); in the first place we could redirect that through {{R from unprintworthy}} until we established, by consensus, the use of a Category:Redirects from questions or some such. Si Trew (talk) 14:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
We do have those stats, sort of: WP:TOPRED. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) *Comment. Searching for the WP:ENGVAR "How many spaces after a full stop" has as my first result Wikipedia:Manual of Style (redirect WP:DOUBLE SPACE) although oűnly by clicking through the redirect would one actually get to the section. Second result is to Template:Sfn, which I use sometimes. Either way this would be a WP:CNR were it to be a redirect. So this is kinda "suppressing" a CNR search (from reader to editor space, moreover), if that makes sense. But of course it depends which namespaces people search on, etc. I'd be interested to know what others get. Si Trew (talk) 14:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

How elements are arranged in the Periodic Table[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. --BDD (talk) 19:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a QA site. GZWDer (talk) 05:03, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep per my point at #How internet use affects humans. --Rubbish computer 12:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Compassionate727 (talk) 13:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. WP:NOTFAQ applies to articles, not redirects. While it is not the most common practice, redirecting a common question with an unambiguous answer to the article that contains that answer meets none of the deletion criteria for redirects and does aid searches and prove useful to someone. Remember that redirects are WP:CHEAP. ~ RobTalk 14:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ, which, along with any other statement on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, can be applied to Wikipedia as a whole, including redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Please read NOTFAQ before invoking it. It's quite clear that it only applies to how articles are laid out. The claim that it can be applied to "Wikipedia as a whole, including redirects" is untrue. WilyD 16:25, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I wouldn't have "invoked" it if I didn't read it. My comment about "Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not" referring to Wikipedia "as a whole" still stands. Anyone can debate the interpretation of that page in discussion (as apparently, we are doing here). If you want to invalidate any part of WP:WWIN to not apply to specific aspects of Wikipedia, feel free to start a discussion on its talk page. However, it looks like the discussion about specifically restricting WP:NOTFAQ from applying to redirects (on WP:WWIN's talk page) is approaching a WP:SNOW oppose close. Steel1943 (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ and Steel1943. Not elaborating on each individually as so many have been listed of this type on this date.Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Given that NOTFAQ does not say anything relevant here, and Steel1943's answer is incoherent, can you explain why you want to delete this useful redirect ? WilyD 16:25, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
      • @WilyD: WP:WWIN doesn't just apply to one particular namespace. Even if we, incorrectly in my opinion, view it that way based on "Wikipedia articles should not read like" (even though it is preceded by "Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not an instruction manual, guidebook, or textbook."); Redirects are most simply alternative article titles, and no where in WP:RPURPOSE does it say they should be question format to navigate. That aside the combination explosion that would result from phrasing every title, section title, or piece of info from an article that people might be looking for in this manner in a "How", "What", "Where", etc. form would be insane.Godsy(TALKCONT) 08:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:19, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • That is in fact entirely possible that I inserted the comment in the wrong discussion. I've noted before that I occasionally click "edit" corresponding to a discussion which has moved as more discussions are added to the page. I think I probably meant what I said here, though, prior to striking it. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

What if extraterrestrials come to Earth[edit]

Wikipedia is not a QA site. GZWDer (talk) 04:47, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete WP:NOTFAQ -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ. --Rubbish computer 13:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. WP:NOTFAQ applies to articles, not redirects. While it is not the most common practice, redirecting a common question with an unambiguous answer to the article that contains that answer meets none of the deletion criteria for redirects and does aid searches and prove useful to someone. Remember that redirects are WP:CHEAP. ~ RobTalk 17:51, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep an obvious rephrasing of the article title. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:37, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ. Speculative.Godsy(TALKCONT) 04:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ, which, along with any other statement on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, can be applied to Wikipedia as a whole, including redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - unambiguously redirects readers to the content they're looking for, no argument has been presented for deletion. Since deleting the redirect would not change whether Wikipedia "as a whole" answered the question, deleting the redirect would not affect whether Wikipedia is (or, as in this case, is not) acting as an FAQ. WilyD 16:16, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:18, 23 August 2015 (UTC)