Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 6[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 6, 2015.

Hoseman[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) 14:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target article, and not finding any references that the redirect is a synonym for the target article, nor finding any references that show the redirect to be an actual existing word. Steel1943 (talk) 23:59, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Rubbish computer 00:13, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom OR Weak Retarget to Horseman as a plausible misspelling --Lenticel (talk) 00:17, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak retarget to Houseman as {{R from typo}} or delete -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No idea why I redirected this in 2006. No objection to deletion or redirecting wherever.  Sandstein  07:17, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete' WP:XY for a bunch of misspellings (to add to the ones mentioned above, Boseman, since "b" is right underneath "h" on a QWERTY keyboard), but no clear meaning on its own. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 08:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment looks like a real word to me [1][2][3]. Is there an existing article which could be expanded to discuss this topic? (I don't think it could stand alone as its own article.) 58.176.246.42 (talk) 09:51, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Given that the person typing this a)could be thinking of "houseman", b)could be thinking of "horseman", or c)could be thinking of the person-of-which-their-hands-happen-to-be-on-the-hose-during-fire-fighting, with all three options equally plausible, it seems best to just have the text in red. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:42, 13 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:Safe sex[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) 14:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RFD#D5, nonsense. This is virtually unused, and doesn't make any sense. -- Tavix (talk) 23:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Huh? Steel1943 (talk) 23:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above points. --Rubbish computer 23:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 23:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. I prefer unprotected editing :) --Lenticel (talk) 01:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can kind of see where the creator may have been coming from if I squint a bit, but this is pretty much nonsense. This looks eligible for a WP:SNOW close. ~ RobTalk 18:01, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with what's stated above. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 18:30, 11 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.

User:Wzyboy[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. Retargeted to the user's user talk page. --BDD (talk) 13:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This used to be an actual userpage, don't know why this was redirected. - TheChampionMan1234 23:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Convert to soft redirect. Allow editors to redirect their page wherever they want to, but not confuse readers by an automatic redirect to another location. Steel1943 (talk) 23:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to soft redirect per Steel1943. --Rubbish computer 23:44, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - WP:CNSR addresses redirects from one namespace to another. The user seemed to do this themself. I don't think it is disallowed, nor do I think it is particularly useful. I personally use one—User:Godsy/RFCOHIL— for a RfC title that is too long and inapt (my own fault). As it is within the users own namespace, if they wanted it to redirect there, certain leeway is given. If it were from the article namespace to another, I would express a different opinion, but it is not.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 23:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have no issue with converting it to a soft redirect, but if the user were to change it back to a straight redirect in the future, I'd say it should be left that way.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 23:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Retarget to user's talk page, which is what I have done in the past when I come upon these redirects where the user is not active or not very active anymore. This editor hasn't edited seriously since last November. – Paine  00:40, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I did this redirection myself. I used to place a lot of user boxes on my zh, en and de user pages, but one day I feel to lazy to maintain them any longer so I redirected all three of them to the main page. This edit was reverted by de wikipedia but zh wikipedia told me it was okay. I am not sure if this is okay for en wikipedia. --Wzyboy (talk) 02:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The user has chimed in, and the page in its current form appears to be their preference for their userpage. While every namespace is part of the project and belongs to the community in a certain sense, as I stated before: leeway is given on certain things within a users own userspace. Striken per the user which whom the page belongs comment below and taking Paine Ellsworth comments into consideration.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete extremely harmful. People going to the userpage would then get bounced to the main portal, and then pressing [talk] to leave a talk page message to this user will end up having it in the wrong place -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:47, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The guideline "guides" us "If you prefer to put nothing [on your user page], then you can redirect it to your user talk page for the convenience of other editors. This plus in the section titled "What may I not have in my user pages?", there is a subsection titled User pages that look like articles. A user page redirected to any mainspace page makes the user page appear to be an article in mainspace. – Paine  07:23, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. "To put nothing on my user page" is exactly my initial purpose. I've redirected my user page to my user talk page. --Wzyboy (talk) 08:16, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close per the discussion above and its results. The user whose namespace this page resides in has decided to take a route which should prove non-controversial.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 09:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - users can do what they like with their user page, messing around with it is intolerably dickish. WilyD 09:54, 7 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.

The Benefits of Blogging[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) 14:07, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTGUIDE. Steel1943 (talk) 23:06, 6 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.

Giullare[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) 14:07, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FORRED; jesters are not exclusive to any Italian-speaking culture. Steel1943 (talk) 19:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Rubbish computer 21:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOTDIC Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary. General topic with no affinity for any particular language -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:51, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - directs reader to the content to the content they're looking for, no rationale presented for deletion. WilyD 09:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Additional nominator rationale. Unlike some of the "keeper(s)" above, I believe that WP:FORRED, along with almost any other article-related policy, can also be applied to redirects to an extent. In this case, it seems that the word has no prominent use in the English language, and would this confuse readers looking up this term and not being redirected to the article presented in the same language as the redirect. Also, translations of terms that are non-English to their respective language articles is handled by Wikidata interwiki links; keeping these foreign language redirects targeting non-foreign articles compromises the usefulness of Wikidata and interwiki searches. Steel1943 (talk) 21:47, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per WP:REDLINK. It seems that the guillare is a cross between a minstrel and a juggler and might have some quirks that are associated with medieval Italy. Perhaps someone well verse in Italian can dig more about this performer? --Lenticel (talk) 00:31, 10 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.

Feet[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 Foot. --BDD (talk) 14:01, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the article Foot is not a disambiguation page (which it is not), shouldn't Feet target that article? I think it should per WP:PLURALPT. Steel1943 (talk) 19:44, 6 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.

Why the federal income tax is illegal[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) 14:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a QA site. GZWDer (talk) 19:14, 6 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.

Why a circle was devided in to 360 degrees[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) 14:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a QA site. GZWDer (talk) 19:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is it? Deviation and Derivative, I am not sure, do they come from the same root? Latin: de vide would mean "of empty space", of "the void", so to split it up into manageable chunks, like catfood, does not seem unreasonable. Si Trew (talk) 22:23, 6 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.

Why we have a food 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 delete. --BDD (talk) 14:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a QA site. GZWDer (talk) 19:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does this really answer why "we" have a food chain? And what does that query mean, really? Is this indeed a common question with an unambiguous answer? --BDD (talk) 14:52, 8 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.

Why there are no extraterrestrials[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) 13:59, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a QA site. GZWDer (talk) 19:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it's an A site, not a Q site. Si Trew (talk) 22:25, 6 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.

Why did egyptians build pyramids?[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) 02:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a QA site. GZWDer (talk) 19:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ. --Rubbish computer 19:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 21:28, 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 NOTFAQ relates to article content, which redirects don't have, I can only assume something else was meant. WilyD 09:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 00:47, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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) 20:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I concur with the opinions stated above. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:11, 14 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.

Why balls bounce?[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) 13:59, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a QA site. GZWDer (talk) 19:10, 6 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.

Why are soap operas so popular[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) 13:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a QA site. GZWDer (talk) 19:09, 6 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.

Why animals don't have wheels[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 14#Why animals don't have wheels

Which law requires Americans to pay direct income tax on their labor[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) 13:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a QA site. GZWDer (talk) 19:08, 6 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 did life start?[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) 02:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a QA site. GZWDer (talk) 19:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ. --Rubbish computer 19:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, plausible search term. Siuenti (talk) 20:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stong Delete per WP:NOTFAQ. While this is a factual encyclopedia, that is a theory. See Panspermia an alternative for example (not quite sure if that falls under pseudoscience or not).—Godsy(TALKCONT) 21:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Panspermia is discussed on the page, and there's a hatnote to Creation myth. Siuenti (talk) 21:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Godsy, this is not necessarily the best target and I'm not sure there is one. -- Tavix (talk) 21:42, 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 NOTFAQ relates to article content, which redirects don't have, I can only assume something else was meant. WilyD 09:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. WP:NOTFAQ applies to articles, not redirects. While it is not the most common practice, redirecting a question 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. The arguments that this is not the only plausible redirect hold much more weight and push me to a weak keep, but as was pointed out by Siuenti above, there are mentions of the other potential theories in this article. This appears the best redirect target at this time. ~ RobTalk 00:51, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no proper target. It also depends on the definition of life, so this is incredibly vague -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:00, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ. That, and we already have at least two other redirects that have encyclopedic titles that don't sound like a question that "ask" the same thing: Beginning of life and Origin of life. Steel1943 (talk) 19:27, 8 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.

What did jfk do[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) 13:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per WP:NOTFAQ. --Rubbish computer 19:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 21:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 00:51, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NOTFAQ, and misleading in the fact that the article doesn't fully encompass the answer to this question. So, it's misleading due to giving the reader a false expectation. Steel1943 (talk) 19:24, 8 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.

African people[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 Demographics of Africa. --BDD (talk) 02:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

African people is not just about the native ethnic groups, it has to do with the people who live in Africa or descend from any of the continent's populations. For example, there are African people of European descent and Category:African people of Asian descent. That said, I request that this redirect should be retargeted to Demographics of Africa or dabified to include Demographics of Africa as well as many other pages such as Black people that are related to African people. Stanleytux (talk) 19:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate per reasons for this in nom. --Rubbish computer 19:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:DABCONCEPT, do not disambiguate; that would merely push the problem down the road, and avoid explaining exactly the issues presented in the nomination. If the term does in fact describe this range of people, then what is needed is an article explaining this, not a perpetually inadequate disambiguation page pointing to a group of articles which do not, individually, explain this. bd2412 T 04:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Comment I was just explaining that Native ethnic groups of Africa isn't the only the topic relating to African people on the English wiki. A disambiguation page will list the other topics that are associated with this topic. The dab European people is a similar case. Stanleytux (talk) 07:50, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly; a dab will merely list topics. It will not explain the relationship between them, nor will any of the listed pages. It is better to have an article that is a stub, even, then to have a disambiguation page that hints at an important concept but fails to cover it or point to any coverage of it. Compare Asian people, which is much more useful to a person looking up that term. bd2412 T 13:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • keep until an article is written. The target is relevant to the topic, and is better than nothing. Disambiguation is not really better for reasons already given above. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Demographics of Africa. The population of the continent seems too diverse for the term to only cover the native Ethnic groups of Africa. European and Asian ethnic groups have had a presence in North Africa since antiquity, Malagasy people have partial descent from Austronesian people from Borneo and their language is Austronesian, European colonials such as the Afrikaners have lived in sub-Saharan Africa since at least the 17th century, and groups of Asian descent such the Asian South Africans have had a presence there since the 19th century. For added complexities, the Americo-Liberians descent from Africans but their culture originates in 19th-century North America. As for the African diaspora, they are spread worldwide but several of them have no more connection to the continent than a distant ancestry. The article Black people can't be properly connected to Africa alone, since it also covers groups such as Indigenous Australians due to their skin color. Dimadick (talk) 21:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Demographics of Africa per Dimadick, and fix the hatnote to Ethnic groups of Africa. The see also there has a list of just about every other article someone would want. -- Tavix (talk) 18:26, 14 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.

Where to buy marmite[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 26#Where to buy marmite

Where do babies come from[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) 13:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a QA site. GZWDer (talk) 19:01, 6 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.

What should pregnant women eat[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) 13:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a QA site. GZWDer (talk) 19:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ. --Rubbish computer 19:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep plausible search term, leading to related information. NOTFAQ says "Wikipedia articles should not list frequently asked questions (FAQs). Instead, format the information provided as neutral prose within the appropriate article(s)." It doesn't go on to say "but don't let anyone use a redirect to find this information. Siuenti (talk) 20:32, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Redirects aid navigation and searching by allowing a page to be reached under alternative titles." While slight misspellings and such are allowed, we should go against the spirit of WP:NOT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Godsy (talk • contribs) 21:08, 6 August 2015
      • So we shouldn't aid navigation and searching? Siuenti (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 21:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Siuenti, let's face it these are coming in droves of "how"s "why"s and "information about"s. We don't need the whys and wherefores, are trying to be a proper encylopaedia. We don't put "how to" or "why" in front of ever article title or we have a combinatorial explosion which does not help readers to search as they have to drift through countless redirects on their search only to end up at the same target. Add little to little and you have a big heap, as Ovid said. These do not help but hinder a search: that is what the search engine is for. Si Trew (talk) 22:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per above, and because I think this borders on medical advice, which is forbidden. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:04, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Thoreau said "Simplify, simplify". He was also rather a tax resister, which kills two birds with one stone. (Wasn't it Benjamin Franklin in Poor Richard's Almanack who said there are only two truths in this world: Death and Taxes?) Si Trew (talk) 00:22, 7 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 is paper made[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 20#How is paper made

How is glass made[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 20#How is glass made

Wiki project[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 move Draft:WikiProject to mainspace and retarget Wiki project there. --BDD (talk) 13:48, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Don't abbreviate "Wikipedia" as "Wiki"!. Probably retarget to Wiki. GZWDer (talk) 18:50, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • @BDD: I added WikiProject to this nomination since in my opinion, both redirects should share the same fate, whatever that is decided to be per consensus. Steel1943 (talk) 19:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've just ended up here because, coincidentally, I was hoping to find an article about the WikiProject concept, so I would know "what kind of thing is Wikipedia:WikiProject Mills?" for example. --Northernhenge (talk) 09:54, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the draft. WP:WPNOTRS will be a challenge, as it would be for any article about Wikipedia itself. --Northernhenge (talk) 10:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have advanced the draft some - there are actually a surprising number of sources that discuss WikiProjects. In fact, I think the draft as it now stands is ready to be moved to mainspace. bd2412 T 15:55, 10 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.

The Dry Gulch Kid[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. WP:INVOLVED close given the size of the backlog and clear consensus. --BDD (talk) 17:30, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we shouldn't cover movies at all until they're out in theaters. This was apparently a film project of Willie Nelson's, but it must be abandoned now, and it's not mentioned on his article. The movie was listed in the filmographies for Nelson and Johnny Knoxville as a 2011 film, but I removed those, as that clearly isn't accurate. BDD (talk) 18:19, 6 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.

Chuck Goff Jr.[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. WP:INVOLVED close given the size of the backlog and clear consensus. --BDD (talk) 17:29, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Google results tell me this person was Toby Keith's "longtime bassist" until his death, not long before this redirect was created. But he's not mentioned at Keith's article, and looking over the personnel of Keith's albums, there were usually other bassists. It does look like Goff co-wrote some of Keith's songs, but I'm thinking he's either notable or he's not. BDD (talk) 18:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if needbe: Honestly, alot of the messages I get notifying me this is being discussed reminds me I even created the redirect. I create them in the event myself or someone else has enough substance to create an article. Two years later, it doesn't seem that way. Rusted AutoParts 18:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Rubbish computer 18:15, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:REDLINK: per both nominator's and creator's rationale, if someone wants to write the article they can, but the current target does not serve readers. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:41, 10 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 Yahoo! Answers[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, delete, delete, and retarget to J. Keith van Straaten, respectively. WP:INVOLVED close given the size of the backlog and clear consensus. --BDD (talk) 17:27, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These were all created by the same user, who is now indefinitely blocked for vandalism. None of these concept appear at the target article, and the last one points to a nonexistent section. --BDD (talk) 17:28, 6 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.

November Yankee[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. There's no support for keeping this as is, disagreement as to where else it could point, and some appetite for deletion. "As you know, you [close an XfD] with the [discussion] you have, not the [discussion] you might want or wish to have at a later time." --BDD (talk) 13:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly retarget to One November Yankee, no other notable usage of this term. - TheChampionMan1234 03:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support ChampionMan. – Illegitimate Barrister 03:58, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All alternatives presented above have a good chance of WP:ASTONISH-ing the reader if directed to any of the above proposed options. It is probably best to red link this title so that the reader can try and figure out what they were actually trying to locate. Steel1943 (talk) 19:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How would November Yankee astonish anyone when they arrive at a DAB explaining its various uses? If they don't, the remedy is to make the DAB better, not to delete the R to it. Si Trew (talk) 00:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For it to not be astonishing if it redirected to NY (disambiguation) would require assuming the prerequisite that our readers have an initiate understanding and awareness of the existence of NATO phonetic alphabet. Knowledge of this cannot be automatically assumed. (I bet there's a policy established for something like that, but I'm not up to finding it right now.) Steel1943 (talk) 03:32, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I found an essay that sort of describes this: WP:ACLUE (which could also probably use some expansion.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Steel1943; don't retarget to a WP:PTM or a dab page with a totally different title. I checked every possible two-letter NATO phonetic alphabet title (only twenty-eight are bluelinks): none redirect to a two-letter dab page, and I don't see any reason why this should be the first one. Most of the bluelinks are for actual titles (e.g. Alfa Romeo, Victor Hotel). There are only three others besides November Yankee which are redirects based solely on an acronym or abbreviation: Mike Delta → Maryland, Victor Charlie → Viet Cong, and Whiskey Hotel → White House. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 10:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Derek Jeter or 2001 World Series#Game 4; Jeter was "Mr. November" with his walk-off home run in game 4 of the 2001 World Series, which many people will probably think of when they see the words "November Yankee". Mizzou1993 (talk) 15:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because Steel and 58 make good points that I can't ignore. -- Tavix (talk) 16:41, 7 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.

📵[edit]

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

This is U+1F4F5 📵 NO MOBILE PHONES. Driving safety is but one reason among many to forbid mobile phones. There is no appropriate target, so delete. Gorobay (talk) 14:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Emojipedia has drawings for this on different platforms. Doesn't display on my Win7 system. Delete per Gorobay. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:40, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Even if all version were the same a picture of a cellphone with a red line across it would not necessary imply driving while taking phone in the first place so I agree.--76.65.42.44 (talk) 02:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's irrelevant how or whether the glyph is rendered: we can't and shouldn't guess what fonts people use (or if e.g. they are using a blind reader). As redirects on the whole these emoji are harmless if they go to the right target; but in this case it doesn't. So... Si Trew (talk) 05:51, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RFD#D2 confusing, WP:RFD#D5 makes no sense. I see a weak retarget to section Etiquette in technology#Cell phone etiquette, I guess, but there are óther places where, in some jurisdictions, mobile phones by law must not be used, so it's not just a matter of etiquette... petrol station forecourts, aeroplanes, and so on (as Gorobay originally implied but did not enumerate, and I'm not sure we want an article on it since it will vary considerably by jurisdiction). Si Trew (talk) 05:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Etiquette in technology#Cell phone etiquette per Si Trew. Can't seem to find a better target at the time being. It's problematic redirecting this to a driving topic specifically (not to say it's disallowed everywhere while driving) because there are other places phone usage isn't allowed.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 05:50, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 13:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As Si Trew says, retargeting is inappropriate because there are many reasons to ban cell phones other than etiquette. Gorobay (talk) 14:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good retarget find, Si, but I disagree this time (surprise!) - I think that "etiquette" and "prohibition" are far apart in terms of meaning, but also not exactly opposites. The glyph certainly implies cell phones prohibited (it's called "no mobile phones") but etiquette does not imply prohibition. I prefer deletion for this one. (As I noted above - no duplicate !vote) Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I struck it above but my Delete notvote in doing so seems to have got lost. So I repeat it now: I am never sure whether after the relist those above are essentially blanked, since if they are I can say it again, if not, I have to revise the past. Si Trew (talk) 00:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as appears to have no appropriate target. Rubbish computer 18:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ivanvector. There appears to be no ideal target. Reach Out to the Truth 00:35, 7 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.

Piece of junk[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. 10:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given that this redirect's current target is a disambiguation page, I don't feel that this redirect is appropriate since it leads the reader to think that both the phrase is ambiguous, and that the terms "piece of junk" and "junk" are synonymous. From my experiences, the term "junk" in this phrase refers to waste or scrap, but this phrase more relates to a broken item, so I'm not sure there is any good target for this phrase. Steel1943 (talk) 03:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment "Piece_of_shit redirects to "shit" and "piece of junk" is a synonym for "piece_of_shitt" when that is applied to inanimate objects. And the article "shit" covers the term "piece_of_shit" -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) I cannot support this option since if I looked up this term and arrived at "Shit", I would be WP:ASTONISH-ed, especially when I wasn't even thinking of the word "shit" at all. I'd support deletion over this option. Steel1943 (talk) 17:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither can I. (Actually, Piece of shit redirects to section Shit#Usage, and while it is mentioned in the head of that section, it could maybe be more specific to Shit#Displeasure.) "Useless" and "contemptuous" are not synonymous. Piece of cake is a DAB, so perhaps that makes a better analogy. Si Trew (talk) 05:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Even though I've dabified the Junk page a bit and mentioned the phrase in the Waste-linked entry, I'm still torn between leaving this redirect as is vs. retargeting to the Waste article. The latter might be confusing to readers, so I lean somewhat toward the former. – Paine  17:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Off topic) Ha, I didn't know we had {{-r}} as a shortcut: I've been surprised that I had to type the longwinded {{no redirect}} all the time. That's handy to know. Si Trew (talk) 05:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're not alone. I went through a long period where I linked to the URL, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:abcxyz&redirect=no abcxyz] before I even found the {{no redirect}} template. It also comes in handy to know that {{-r}} takes a display parameter: {{-r|Redirect title|Your title choice}} displays as Your title choice. – Paine  14:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 13:49, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:POFR. Rubbish computer 18:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Godsy and Rubbish computer, I don't mean to call you two out, because I'm sure you're not the only ones doing it, but could you elaborate when you appeal to POFR? There are many disparate reasons listed there, so saying "per POFR" tells a closer little more than a plain "Keep" vote would. --BDD (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @BDD: Personally I did so because of the first point: a likely alternative name. --Rubbish computer 21:56, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure, I'm always generally willing to expand or discuss my rationale. "Alternative names" and "More specific forms of names" were perhaps the two most relevant from the WP:POFR list. It also isn't phrased in a way that goes against the spirit of WP:WWIN.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 22:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - discussed at target. WilyD 10:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
n.b. It no longer is. I removed that entry, as it failed MOS:DABMENTION. --BDD (talk) 13:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not discussed on Wikipedia, not present on Wiktionary. I highly doubt that anyone looking for "piece of junk" couldn't find their way to Junk if they didn't even know what junk is. --BDD (talk) 13:43, 13 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.

Visa requirements for American citizens[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. Please use RM for a move. --BDD (talk) 13:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

to make way for a move A8v (talk) 10:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

{{subst:Requested move|Visa requirements for American citizens|reason=Insert your reason here}}
on Talk:Visa requirements for United States citizens. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 11:40, 6 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.

ARTICLE TITLE[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 and salt. JohnCD (talk) 10:51, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Makes no sense, implausible search term (not for reader space) - TheChampionMan1234 09:24, 6 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.

Villa Visonó[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) 10:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:R3 ★ Nacho ★ (Talk page) ★ 08:33, 6 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.

Vrhnje[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) 10:48, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FORRED; cream is not a topic exclusive to Croatian-speaking cultures. Steel1943 (talk) 06:30, 6 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:@Mufee6[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) 10:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable page that was moved from userspace to the wikipedia namespace back in January which I moved back, but now has a redirect in the Wikipedia namespace that is unnecessary. Pokechu22 (talk) 05:58, 6 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.

Lights out[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) 13:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Bedtime per WP:DIFFCAPS. There was no basic definition of this at the DAB until I added it WP:BOLDly but perhaps wrongly at the target, except the link to the Wiktionary entry. We don't have lights-out, which Wiktionary seems to prefer. Si Trew (talk) 05:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - after brushing up on WP:DIFFCAPS, I prefer the current target. While it is a synonym of bedtime, I think it's more likely "bedtime" would be searched for. Anyhow the DAB now directs them there if that is indeed the usage the reader is looking for.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 09:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • And what if it is not? (Answer: Add it to the DAB.) Si Trew (talk) 00:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I feel like the average person searching for "Lights out" most likely is thinking of it as an exact title for something, whether a song or an album or a film or whatever else... I agree with what's stated above. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:08, 11 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 Main Page[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. The end of an era? --BDD (talk) 14:48, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Arbitrary break (Redirects to Main Page)[edit]

I have decided not to list them all here due to the fact that there are lots, but they are all here, and I have tagged them with AWB and my alt accont, the rationale is the same, this is English Wikipedia, and those search terms in unhelpful because the target provides no information in that language (update, I cannot seem to properly tag them, I don't use AWB that often, so please could someone complete this nomination) . - TheChampionMan1234 05:50, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

resolved problems and notes regarding the nomination
  • Comment. re the AWB request, actually I'd be happier if you keep this one as a test case, and then list all the others if we get consensus: I'm not sure a bulk listing is a good idea here.
Wikipédia:Accueil principal has come up before (but not Accueil on its own): most recently at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_1#Wikipédia:Accueil_principal. In fact been deleted three times in Spring 2010 and twice in the first half of 2014, but perhaps editors' opinions were influenced by it being in a non-English namespace anyway.
German Hauptseite came up some three weeks later (Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_26#Hauptseite) and that was closed with no consensus.
Since these two have different outcomes I am not sure we have much general consensus on these. I think there have been discussions for redirects to the main page from other languages, but my search is not being very co-operative. Other editors often do better. Si Trew (talk) 06:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonTrew: As per my previous nomination, it seems like a new consensus is emerging. - TheChampionMan1234 08:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@TheChampionMan1234: I'm so glad you made that into a list, it made it super easy for me to add the whole list to the nomination in about 5 minutes. I copy and pasted the list into excel, found and replaced every instance of the string " (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | views)", leaving just the redirect on each line (all in column A). Then I pasted {{subst:rfd2|multi=yes|redirect=RedirectName2|target=TargetArticle2}} into B1, replaced TargetArticle2 with Main Page and removed RedirectName2. I actually split this into two columns at this point, splitting it after "redirect=". Defining A1 as the redirect itself, B1 as the first half of {{rfd2}} and C1 as the second half of {{rfd2}}, I created a concatenate function in D1 (=CONCATENATE(B1,A1,C1)). I pull the column down, copy and pasted column D into this thread, and now they're all added. -- Tavix (talk) 14:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonTrew:As Champ already alluded to, there was a test case last week that you participated in involving 17 other main page WP:RFFLs. There was 6 delete !votes and 0 keep !votes which seems like a strong enough test to me. -- Tavix (talk) 14:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not all of these redirects have been marked for deletion. Gorobay (talk) 14:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I had AWB completely set-up to do that task when I noticed you were doing it that way. To each his own, I guess. I'm going to collapse this since it's a pretty lengthy section that's been resolved. -- Tavix (talk) 15:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (copying from the last discussion). There really is no reason to have an "exception" for main page WP:FORREDs, the same rationale for deletion applies to them. I'd argue even more so because the "main page" isn't a search term, it just happens to be what the home page is called. They are easily a "novel or very obscure synonym for an article name" so WP:RFD#D8 applies here. I simply don't understand why someone would be at a random English article and decide that the best way to get to a different language's Wikipedia would be to type "main page" in that language. That doesn't even work, because they'll end up at the main English page and not the main page of that language, so its confusing (WP:RFD#D2). The way to do that would be to go to wikipedia.org and NOT en.wikipedia.org. -- Tavix (talk) 14:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tavix. Those arguments are unbeatable and succinctly put. It does come up tome and time again, I seem to recall somewhere putting in something towards the Spanish Main and Main Sea as possible perfectly valid alternatives for a "Main" page, to show that "main page:"is not some kind of special page. Excuse my even worse than normal typos but the length of this page, even now split, is far too slow in rendering with the built in editor for it tro keep up with me. So at least you see how my tupiung looks before I ce, which is not too bad really when I am typing blind, is it. : Si Trew (talk) 15:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per Tavix. While some of these might have a meaning which is better represented by one of our existing articles, evaluating each one would be a massive project since they're in several widely different languages. If a handful are useful, someone will recreate them, so mass deletion is generally harmless. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:56, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Back when I rcatted these (and even created a few) I wondered when and if this day would come, and I have mixed emotions about it. On the one hand, they are indeed exceptions, and on the other hand they are all most certainly used in many sister language projects for reference, so a lot of links that can't be seen on their WLH pages will be broken if these are deleted. That could possibly strain relationships between other-lang Wikipedias and the en=English Wikipedia project. I think some of them may have even been created by Jimbo and Larry Sanger. – Paine  17:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you give an example? Why wouldn’t other wikis use e.g. [[:en:|Hauptseite]]? Gorobay (talk) 17:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Was that linking always available? Many of these are from way back, plus it was also considered that redirects to the Main Page do not appear in a "Redirected from..." link at the TOP of the page. – Paine  17:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Most of these were created in the summer of 2007, so they're not super old. None of them were created by Jimbo or Larry and I don't know why they'd have a want/need to use these anyway. -- Tavix (talk) 18:04, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • It seems like when I rcatted these, there were a whole lot more of them. Perhaps many of them have already been deleted? With Gorobay's mention of the cross-wiki type of language link, I don't see the need for them anymore, either. It appears their time has come. – Paine  19:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Super weak retarget Forside to EarthBound. In the video game EarthBound, there is a setting/city by the name Fourside (which currently redirects to EarthBound.) It's a plausible misspelling. Steel1943 (talk) 18:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per WP:FORRED as these are redirects from unrelated foreign languages. --Rubbish computer 18:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update added a couple more, I didn't notice those due to the fact that they were in projectspace. - TheChampionMan1234 23:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is the English Wikipedia, the mainpage on all Wikipedias is easily accessibly by click on the Wikipedia logo, so this is no help in navigation. Further, these are very misleading since they do not lead to the mainpages of these languages. Nor are these even valid dictionary entries, since they lead to the main page portal, and not to the topic of a "main page" or "home page" -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I just arrived from one of these. They are convenient and harmless. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:51, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...Unless a reader is looking up these terms with the intention to find the version of the Main page for the language of Wikipedia which that language refers. Steel1943 (talk) 21:07, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom, disregarding my "weak retarget" vote for Forside above. Steel1943 (talk) 21:08, 8 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.

Tucking in (parenting, food)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 19#Tucking in (parenting, food)

Untitled 10th ROH PPV[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) 10:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RFD#D2. This isn't untitled. -- Tavix (talk) 00:39, 6 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.

Robert E. MacArthur[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) 10:36, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert MacArthur's middle name is Helmer. I didn't find any sources where his middle name starts with an "E".  SchreiberBike | ⌨  00:29, 6 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.

"untitled" self-titled albums[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 all. JohnCD (talk) 10:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as confusing because the album is not untitled. Self titling an album doesn't make it "untitled", it just has the same name as the band/artist. Note: if the album is known as "untitled", the article doesn't mention it as such. For example Blink-182 (album) is also known as "untitled" and the article makes that clear. -- Tavix (talk) 00:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Redirects beginning with "Untitled" should generally be deleted, except in certain cases such as the Blink182's, which Tarvix mentioned above.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 04:32, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW, Untitled NOFX album exists as a redirect because I moved the article from that title 4 years ago. There is an old discussion at Talk:NOFX (2011 EP)#Article title about whether the release is titled NOFX or is untitled. In either case I don't think it very likely that a reader would type "untitled NOFX album" as a search term, and there are plenty of other ways for them to find their way to the article (NOFX discography, and {{NOFX}} at the bottom of every NOFX-related article), so I have no particular objection to the redirect being deleted. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Rubbish computer 18:45, 6 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.

Untitled albums with titles[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 all. JohnCD (talk) 10:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as confusing because these albums are not untitled; they have titles. -- Tavix (talk) 00:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 00:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Information that is either dated or will become dated. Entries starting with "Untitled" are generally not useful. The albums are not untitled.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 04:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. jona(talk) 17:50, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RFD#D2. --Rubbish computer 18:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The small sample of articles I've looked at via the redirects don't mention any untitled albums. Why were these redirects created? I could imagine someone ignoring WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL and creating an article for a forthcoming, currently untitled, album and then moving it when the title became known. That would leave a redirect in place but it should be deleted. It would be different if the album was somehow released without a title, but an unofficial name later came into common use. In that case, though, the popular name should redirect to the "untitled..." article, not the other way round. --Northernhenge (talk) 09:49, 11 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_August_6&oldid=1142587258"