Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 26[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 26, 2015.

Victual[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) 13:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • Keep disambiguations are not for misspellings. -- Tavix (talk) 22:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Rubbish computer 15:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Look up vittel in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
]
Delete. It is not a bloody misspelling, it is an {{R from old spelling}} or whatever. The C has got elided to make it [[vittel], but that is a a German town and not a word, because we are WP:NOTDIC. It no longer means vital, which is what it did mean, that is, from Latin vita 'life', and the C was introduced in about 1300 I think, before the proles had time to become literate. We are WP:NOTDIC and by targeting it to Food you lose its etymology, and forget that e.g H2O is also a victual. I didn't realise that one of the aims of Wikipedia was to subtract from human knowledge. Wiktionary doesn't have it, as you can see. from Latin ars longa, vita brevis 'Big arse, small vital organs'. Si Trew (talk) 06:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Where to buy marmite[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 refine to Marmite#Availability worldwide. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 16:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
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?[reply]
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)[reply]
  • Retarget per WilyD. Rubbish computer 15:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Marmite#Availability_worldwide per WilyD. With most products this would be one of those "we don't answer the question at the target" arguments, but the worldwide availability of Marmite is something which somewhat regularly makes the news, because of its odd distribution and copyright status in various places, so readers are somewhat more likely to search for it (versus, for example, where to buy corn). Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Wittle[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 wittle to whittle and delete wittles. The consensus is that, as neither term is covered at food, there is no benefit in redirecting there. Wittle is retargeted because it could be a plausible misspelling for whittle, which is a dab page, however because there was no such plausible typo to redirect to for wittles, it is deleted. Jenks24 (talk) 11:46, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • retarget to whittle as plausible misspelling or soft retarget to its wiktionary entry. --Lenticel (talk) 03:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • It would be a cognitive mispelling or a phonetic mispelling -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:02, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep. It is Dickens’s pronunciation spelling of “victuals”, not a typo or baby talk. Gorobay (talk) 16:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep wittle is the term used for food in Charles Dickens' Great Expectations. Rabbabodrool (talk) 16:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Delete wittles. [seems to be a WP:SURPRISE.] Rubbish computer 15:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.

Pacers[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 Pacer. The consensus is that from a worldwide and historical point of view, the Indiana Pacers is not the primary topic. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 18:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • @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)[reply]
  • retarget to Pacer to avoid systemic bias. --Lenticel (talk) 00:11, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    ... systemic bias as evidenced by favoring a basketball team over...? Red Slash 02:26, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep at current target: Pacers → Indiana 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)[reply]
  • 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).[reply]
  • Retarget to Pacer. Rubbish computer 13:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    The basketball WP:GHITS for "Pacers" appear to be occurring as sub-strings of "Indiana Pacers", rather than standalone.[1]. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
I don't see anywhere I wrote "oppose". Si Trew (talk) 21:42, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
The clue was "first page". Si Trew (talk) 21:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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 study[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus, default to keep. Deryck C. 13:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
  • Keep per BDD as this an article on how to study. -- Tavix (talk) 20:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Neutral - the target is probably fine since it gives the searcher useful information on their query. However, someone going on Wikipedia and typing "how to study" is probably better served in their present situation by having their computer promptly turned off. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 13:42, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Article is about study skills, kids usually search "How to study" while searching for study skills. --Human3015Send WikiLove  14:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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 read a clock[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 refine to Clock face#Reading a modern clock face. Deryck C. 13:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
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 play basketball[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 Rules of basketball. Deryck C. 08:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • Retarget (first choice) or keep (second choice) per Rob's eloquent rationale. Thryduulf (talk) 21:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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.

Etusivu[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 13:26, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • 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)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Rubbish computer 15:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Wilma Alba Cal[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 13:25, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Delete to encourage article creation. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 15:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:REDLINK. Thryduulf (talk) 21:41, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Rubbish computer 15:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Translate. No need to delete it first. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 liqueurs[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 21:06, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.

Porky pie[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus, default to keep. Deryck C. 08:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • 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)[reply]
{Edit} Thus, it makes more sense to direct the term to Pork Pie (disambiguation). CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:42, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • (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)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. Usually Google picks up Cockney phrases for me but missed this one. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:24, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect to wikt:porky pie, where the term is discussed. -- Tavix (talk) 22:45, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. Rubbish computer 02:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • Redirect - Cockney rhyming slang per User:CoffeeWithMarkets. --Legis (talk - contribs) 14:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose retarget to Cockney rhyming slang since "porky pie" is an example of "cockney rhyming slang", but "country rhyming slang" isn't exclusive to just the phrase "porky pie". Neutral on all other recommendations thus far. Steel1943 (talk) 17:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 'my friend' 'my old china plate, old meaning longstanding' 'my mate' is not immediately obviou how you get from a friend to China. Si Trew (talk) 21:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • Disambig perhaps, I agree that this seems to refer equally to either of those articles. Thryduulf (talk) 12:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per there being several suitable targets. Rubbish computer 12:24, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus, default to keep. Deryck C. 09:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO. Steel1943 (talk) 00:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 02:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOTHOWTO -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO. Rubbish computer 13:06, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
You can't do it in semaphore flags -> Flag semaphore, btw, that would be TPQ, as any boy scout kno. Si Trew (talk) 14:58, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, as a lover of useless knowledge, Lord Nelson's flags were wrong at the Battle of Waterloo. Well at least according to the pictures. It does not say "England expects that every man shall do his duty". But what can one expect, when it was hoist by a Scotsman? I only mention this cos we whipped the frogs' arse in 1815 and I know it was only 200 years ago but they never dared try it again. Oh a world war or two, but what did they do for us honest, hardworking, english stock? OK, they provided the venue. Si Trew (talk) 15:02, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Or was that the Duke of Wellington I forget. I was never much good at history. I did metalwork. Si Trew (talk) 15:09, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
...---... 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)[reply]
  • Keep, weakly: the procedure for making a Mayday call is deliberately internationally standard, and this article does instruct on the procedure. Other than the specifics of how to actually operate a marine/aviation radio, the article gives the reader the information they're looking for. Also: Mayday is not SOS; calling "Mayday Mayday Mayday" in Morse Code would be foolish, especially if you did it with a VHF radio. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 13:40, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, perhaps we should have How not to make a mayday call, then. I suggest as a target Not Waving but Drowning. Si Trew (talk) 14:53, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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 factor polynomials[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus, default to keep. Deryck C. 09:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO. Steel1943 (talk) 00:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 02:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOTHOWTO -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO. Rubbish computer 13:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • '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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 fish[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Some argue WP:NOTHOWTO; others argue that the target doesn't directly answer the question so the redirect is unhelpful. Both views support deletion. Deryck C. 09:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO. Steel1943 (talk) 00:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 02:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOTHOWTO -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO. Rubbish computer 13:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Why Fishing and not Fishing techniques? --BDD (talk) 15:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • @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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • Retarget to Fishing techniques per BDD. Thryduulf (talk) 22:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm concerned as BDD describes: a reader typing this is likely seeking instruction on how to execute the various techniques (or most likely one particular technique) but the target merely lists what they are. In the same way that How to ride a bike would not be a good redirect to bicycle, because we don't instruct on how to ride a bike in that article, and how-to content is forbidden. But unlike BDD, I think this is better off deleted than pointing to a close-but-not-quite-right target. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RFD#D2 confusing. It could go to The Art of Coarse Fishing for that matter. It doesn't and shouldn't. Let the search engine do it. Si Trew (talk) 01:51, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As pointed out above, the article on "Fishing" anyways is pretty general-- not a guidebook on how exactly to fish, based on the area. It's somewhat like (to use a silly example) expecting the article on "God" to show you exactly "How do I become God?" when you search the question. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 13:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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 control global warming[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus, default to keep. Deryck C. 13:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO. Rubbish computer 16:50, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO. Steel1943 (talk) 00:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO and nom.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 02:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOTHOWTO -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:24, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOTHOWTO as everyone else has said. --Mr. Guye (talk) 21:13, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Lenticel (talk) 01:15, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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 solve the Rubiks Cube[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Some argue for WP:NOTHOWTO; others argued that there isn't a single ideal target for this title, and disambiguation isn't an obvious solution either. Deryck C. 09:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Comment: I merged these two discussions together due to the redirects being almost identical. Steel1943 (talk) 15:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO. Steel1943 (talk) 00:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO and Si Trew.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 02:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete wP:NOTGAMEGUIDE -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:24, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO, WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE. Rubbish computer 12:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I'd certainly support that proposal. Thryduulf (talk) 13:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I didn't make it plain. WP:NOTHOWTO, and How to Do the Rubik's Cube is a book, so WP:REDLINK. If that article is written then this can point to that. Until that happy day arrives, it is better red. The "the" is redundant, anyway, and How to solve Rubik's Cube and variants are all red. Si Trew (talk) 06:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Phantom song[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 Phantom#Music. Deryck C. 10:06, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

<-- 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)[reply]
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.

Soap and water[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 Refined as {{R to section}} Soap#Action of soap WP:BOLD (non-admin closure) by Si Trew (talk) 01:41, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
It's not too big of a deal either way. I'll strike this to save a relist. -- Tavix (talk) 05:28, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • I cannot add the RfD notification to the page, because it is fully protected. Si Trew (talk) 06:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whatever we decide, do the same with Fuckers → Fuck, 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Comment: I tagged and merged Fuckers into this discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 12:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Note: Since the redirect is fully protected, an admin needs to close this. -- Tavix (talk) 20:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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]

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 varied. Despite the disparate entries here, it seems like there's a good deal of agreement. Since no single item here garnered a great deal of discussion, however, you may consider all of these decisions without prejudice against speedy (separate) nominations. The decisions are:

--BDD (talk) 22:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • Delete all, WP:NOTDIC. Fucker → Fuck, 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)[reply]
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 shit → shit? Si Trew (talk) 06:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • Retarget Slant (slur) to List_of_ethnic_slurs#S, where it is discussed (under "slope"). WilyD 12:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • /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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
No, "pissed" is WP:ENGVAR anyway (US English "annoyed", Br. Eng. "drunk"). I was pissed when I was in NYC and asked to bum a fag... Si Trew (talk) 05:13, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Pissed" now seems to go a disambig page for "Piss", which makes sense and I think pretty much everyone can get behind. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 13:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Fellation → Fellatio, so zour ejaculation is cast astray, there. I think both are WP:NOUNs in English (the first in Italian being a verb, in Latin a first person singular present indicative, and the second being the -tion formation an English; actor (article)/action (DAB) perhaps being a good example: a luvvie → (DAB) or {{-r|[[stage actor}} → actor does not "act" any more, the primary good old English, but "provides action"). See Fowler. WP:NOTDIC. Si Trew (talk) 05:31, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment. luvvie is a WP:TWODABS. I intend, one day, to correct that, since although it is an occasional section in Private Eye (magazine), to which I am a long-term subscriber, it is used more-generally to mean stage actors. I think it was Sir John Gielgud, a very down-at-earth man, who hated people calling him "luvvie" and so Private Eye persistently labelled him so, to his chagrin and delight. It was Beryl Reid, by the way, who told her over-zealous stage director "I think you are confusing me with one of those actresses who gives a fuck". Quoted by Clive James, I think, in his Unreliable Memoirs. Si Trew (talk) 05:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Do we all agree (or almost all of us) that both "Blood belching vagina" and "Pussy shit" should probably remain red? Neither of them are profanities in general use anywhere. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 13:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget Slant (slur) per WilyD; delete all the rest. They serve no function except to be used in offensive (by nature, unencyclopedic) situations. One has already been R3 deleted. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 13:31, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_August_26&oldid=1090659004"