Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 October 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 15[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 15, 2015.

Tits in the Morning[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. I love the smell of... --BDD (talk) 14:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no mention of this title, probably nonsense (created by the editor who redirected ASL Tower to CN Tower, nominated below). Peter James (talk) 20:50, 15 October 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:THISISWHATYOUDOIFYOUFEELUNABLETOCOPEWITHAPOLICYMADEYEARSBEFOREYOUHEARDABOUTWIKIPEDIA[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Speedy Delete, R3 by User:Anthony_Bradbury. Lenticel (talk) 00:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't believe this redirect is constructive or worth keeping as a joke. WP:IAR is a long-standing policy with consensus that it allows the project to improve. A userspace essay about one's problems with IAR is fine, but I don't think the idea of having a project-space redirect labeling it as "what you do if you feel unable to cope" with policy is going to improve Wikipedia. This redirect came after the creator's nomination of IAR for deletion. Nick⁠—⁠Contact/Contribs 17:08, 15 October 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.
    • I am not disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. I'm just adding a few non-vandalism jokes I felt might be OK while still making WIkipedia useful. Krett12 (talk) 20:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

St. James Schooll (Hyde Park, New York)[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) 14:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's a redirect for a building related to the church; while that's not particularly helpful, it's not unhelpful to the point of deletion. The problem is that it's always been misspelled; who's going to type all of this name with the "Schooll" misspelling? It was created as a redirect, and while this would be acceptable were it a situation of {{R from move}}, the combination of created-as-such and misspelling makes this an unhelpf redirect. Nyttend (talk) 15:54, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This hinders a search because people likely want a school other than the one in Hyde Park, New York. I think we have a policy about primary schools anyway that they are generally not notable. WP:SCHOOL? Si Trew (talk) 05:07, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See, even I am confused. The school is not listed at either of those DABs, but there are thousands of Schools named St James or St. James, he seems quite a popular fellow. Si Trew (talk) 05:36, 16 October 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.

King John I[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 John I. This seems a bit WP:XY, and either retargeting option has some issues. Si Trew is correct that any given cluster of Kings John will include a I, but that page also includes kings who weren't I. John I includes people who weren't kings, but the terminology isn't always so clearly defined. Someone we mostly think of as a prince could also be referred to as a king in some contexts. It looks like both dabs link to each other, so there's that too. --BDD (talk) 14:37, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should this stay where it is, be retargeted to King John or retargeted to John I? -- Tavix (talk) 15:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to John I, where several other Kings John I appear. Nyttend (talk) 15:55, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect but to King John, which is a list of kings. Many of those listed at John I are not, and it's not clear which are from the dab page. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:00, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget with Ivan to King John. Every country that has had a King John (Janus, Johann, whatever) will have had a first one, so the list of em seems a better idea. In fact, King John I is incorrect in that England never had a John II so there is no need to disambiguate with the numeric specificially for England, and he is just King John of England, not King John I of England, which rightly we have not got. Si Trew (talk) 05:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I am a liar, King John I of England redirects to John, King of England. Wrong but useful. Si Trew (talk) 05:40, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have been saying in my head "King John I" so much that I am starting to confuse him with Kim Jong-il. Totally different chap. One was a landgrabbing territorial overseer, ruling mercilessly over his subjects but eventually having to submit to their will in a famous declaration, and the other was an English king. Si Trew (talk) 05:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Rubbish computer: Why would John I be the most suitable target and not King John? -- Tavix (talk) 18:21, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to John I. May I suggest that we group the John I's in the target article based on their rank? We can have a subheading for "Kings", "Dukes" etc. Afterwards, we can point this to John I#Kings --Lenticel (talk) 01:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd go along with that, although it can probably be "kings", "popes", "other nobility", and so on. What if we then merged King John into it? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment hmm... maybe a King John link at the target's "See Also" section would be less work than a merge yet serve the same function. --Lenticel (talk) 06:19, 20 October 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.

ASL Tower[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) 14:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused by what "ASL Tower" means, and the article doesn't mention it. I attempted to figure it out via a web search, but literally every connection I could find was to Wiki-mirrors. I got a bunch of results of people demonstrating the ASL sign for "tower" and a couple hits for a tower being x "above sea level." -- Tavix (talk) 15:31, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well actually I just took that name by deed poll, but as friends you can just call me Uni Cube. Si Trew (talk) 03:52, 16 October 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.

Ibrahim I of the Ottoman Empire[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) 14:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary redirect with no inlinks: there was only one sultan named Ibrahim (see list). QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:13, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as an {{R from incorrect name}}. This is a reasonable mistake to make if someone isn't aware that he's the only Ibrahim or if someone is unaware that he doesn't get one of those fancy roman numerals unless there is someone else with the same name. To make a western comparison, we have King John I and Pope Francis I, even though they are the only people by that name. -- Tavix (talk) 15:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just took another look at King John I, and realized that there are a lot of other King John's or even John I. That's going to need more discussion. It's a bad example nevertheless. -- Tavix (talk) 15:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Nope, we have Ibrahim II fpr example, but not "of the Ottoman Empire". We do not have Ibrahim III or Ibrahim IV (et cetera). Were we to do this thoroughly we should have all or none. Delete as WP:RFD#D2 confusing, the first King is never named "the first" until a second one comes along, that is the usual primogeniture. Si Trew (talk) 15:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, that's not always the case. Pope John Paul I, for example, used "the First" as part of his papal name, even before JPII came around. Second, we can't assume everyone is familiar with primogeniture, especially Americans who aren't normally exposed to it. -- Tavix (talk) 15:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that is why Bennett's The Madness of George III was renamed for film The Madness of King George, so Americans didn't try to find the prequels The Madness of George I and The Madness of George II. Si Trew (talk) 03:59, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By the way JPII has a metro stop named after him on new Metro 4 line in Budapest, well it is named for the square above it, Janos Pál Papa Masodik tér, Pope John II square. A bit of a mouthful for the automated announcer to read. Nice little square actually. Si Trew (talk) 04:03, 16 October 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.

Samara cate frist[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. Deryck C. 10:09, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This just might be the strangest redirect I've ever come across. If you look at the source text, it looks like the creator, who never did anything else, attempted to have it simultaneously point to Bill Frist, Samaritan's Purse, University of Tennessee, and Thomas Frist. It seems to concatenate a shortening of Samaritan's Purse, the maiden name of Bill Frist's mother (Thomas Frist's wife), and the Frist family. How the University of Tennessee connects, I have no idea. "samara cate frist" is returning nothing except a forum post and a LinkedIn profile, suggesting someone with this name, who apparently attended Tennessee, but who you'd think would have a higher profile. There's no indication of someone by this name on the articles for Bill, Thomas Sr., or Thomas Jr. --BDD (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll pick up the bass for you, as long as you are on the fiddle. Sorry I thought it was a midget with a violin but you were just a long way away. Si Trew (talk) 00:27, 17 October 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.

Yeargh[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. Deryck C. 16:01, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised that we don't have an article on fanciful or imagined pirate lingo. Pirates in popular culture has a reference about the topic, though in the article, it only supports a statement about the type of English accent "pirate speak" is based on. International Talk Like a Pirate Day comes pretty close, rendering this particular utterance "Yarrr" (which, for my money, is a much more common form), but retargeting there seems too specific. BDD (talk) 15:26, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This was on an episode of QI for pirate's lingo and actually was invented by one person in music hall (vaudeville) that kind of West country pirate's accent, and everyone else copied it and it became a kinda stock in trade. I forget his name, unfortunately, but was a bit part actor who just happened to stumble across piratical parts. Pirate speak seems fairly good at a gsearch but we haven't it here. I would gladly create an article if I could just remember the actor's name to make a start... to have it go to Piracy ia far far too broad, and most piracy of course is not of the pantomime kind (unfortunately, rather more serious and less romantic). Si Trew (talk) 04:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. High risk trading was also at a previous RfD a week or so ago to refer to here so I have included it in the listing, I hope that is the right thing to tie it up. I have an opinion of it, but this edit is just to tie it up and is kinda procedural neutral. Si Trew (talk) 06:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's still at RfD at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 October 8#High risk trading. Despite having the same target, it's really a separate discussion from this one. --BDD (talk) 14:52, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, High risk trading has nothing to do with piracy though, more to do with gambling, although it is a gamble where the odds should fall on the taker's side for a small frac. We don't have Low risk trading. (which would essentially be what banks do with your cash). We don't have high-risk trading with the hyphen either. The actor, I remembered, was Robert Newton. Si Trew (talk) 00:31, 17 October 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.

Police woman redirects[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 all to Women in law enforcement. Deryck C. 02:15, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's original rationale before all of the redirects were listed

This redirect has had a rather minor edit war of sorts to determine its target. The targets have alternated between Police officer (per WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT) and Police woman (disambiguation) (the redirect'a current target, formerly at Police Woman, a disambiguation page). I believe that the redirect should be retargetted to Police officer per WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT, since Police woman redirects to Police officer, the inclusion of the space in "police woman" vs. "policewoman" is (in my opinion) not really a sufficient disambiguator per WP:DIFFPUNCT (Struck out since Police woman was also changed and I did not notice until after this nomination was made, and was this added to this nomination) and since both of their opposite-gender terms, Police man and Policeman, also redirect to Police officer. Steel1943 (talk) 20:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These redirects have had a bit of an rather minor edit war in their existence due to trying to find primary topics, it seems. Anyways, in my opinion, Retarget all (except Police Woman) to Police officer per WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT, Keep Police Woman per a clear WP:DIFFCAPS distinction. Also, I oppose "keep"ing Female police as a redirect to Police woman (disambiguation) since it targets a disambiguation page, and the phrases "female police" and "police woman" are not "letter-by-letter with/without punctuation/capitalization differences" variations of each other. Steel1943 (talk) 20:51, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator opinion add: Also, I oppose retarget to Women in law enforcement, but do support putting a hatnote on Police officer directing readers to Women in law enforcement. Law enforcement isn't exclusive to police, and the nominated redirects do refer to a female police officer, so I see Police officer being the WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT target for these redirects. (Also, I'm now a bit neutral on the fate of Police Woman, but would prefer to targeting the same target as the rest of the nominated redirects.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:27, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion regarding adding addition redirects to this discussion
Steel1943: I don't know how to do multinoms in RfD but please add, Female police, Police Woman, Policewomen, Police-woman, Police-women and Police women to this nom. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Salvidrim!: As I stated in my correction (your edit was actually an edit conflict, by the way), that I noticed Police woman was changed after I made the initial nomination. Also, I'd rather not add Female police or Police Woman since I do not believe that they should point towards the same target as the two I nominated above. (But, I'm about to nominate Female police separately for other reasons.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:26, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Salvidrim!: I will add the rest that you mentioned (except Police Woman and Female police) since I do agree they should be added since their outcome should match the outcomes of what has been nominated thus far. Steel1943 (talk) 20:31, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Salvidrim!: I'll go ahead and nominate them all, especially since you broke it down quite nicely below, and I'd rather not confuse the closer with a nomination/statement mismatch. Steel1943 (talk) 20:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes but it's a valid redirect title, so sure it could be G5'd and recreated (that's what I did with Female police) but that's a pointless bureaucratic exercise IMO. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, if someone wants to do it, there is justification though... -- Tavix (talk) 00:18, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I endorse G5; I was the one that flagged female police as a TyrusThomas4lyf contrib, but it was practically unused. Policewomen is reasonably active, but I think deletion and recreation is harmless. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 12:59, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Two things. First, I want to clarify that Ivanvector and Rubbish computer want Police Woman retargeted as well, unlike the nominator. Second, I want to throw Women in law enforcement out there for consideration. Besides the hatnote, the only mention of women at Police officer is the image of two Indian policewomen. I see merit to both arguments—"A police officer's a police officer regardless of gender" and "No, the search term indicates the reader wants more specific information."
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ű
  • Retarget all. Singing:
When a felon's not engaged on his employment (his employment)
Or maturing his felonious little plans (little plans)
His capacity for innocent enjoyment (ent enjoyment)
Is just as great as any honest man's. (Honest man's)
...
When constabulary duty's to be done (to be done)
The policeman's lot is not a happy one (happy one)
— Gilbert and Sullivan in The Pirates of Penzance
Now W. S. Gilbert (and you can't beat someone whose middle name is Shwenck) was quite specific about it being a policeman not a policewoman. However I think Police officer would be the WP:NEUTRAL and they can all go there. Si Trew (talk) 05:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget all to Women in law enforcement. Readers using these terms are probably looking for information specifically about female police officers, which is lacking in the general article. --BDD (talk) 14:30, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget all to Women in law enforcement with a hatnote to the dab page (superseding my original !vote). I accept the argument that law enforcement is broader than just police, however our "women in law enforcement" article is pretty much exclusively about women in police services, with a bit of military history. I agree that someone searching these terms is more likely looking specifically for information on women in this field, rather than the field generally. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Ivanvector. —⁠烏⁠Γ (kaw) │ 02:50, 29 October 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.

@reply[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) 14:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think someone searching this is looking for Twitter. "@reply" is the name of a Twitter account, but it doesn't look to be official, so this could be sending a wrong message... -- Tavix (talk) 19:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom since yes, it is misleading and the redirect cannot be tagged as {{R from Twitter username}} since the subject of this title as a Twitter username doesn't have a Wikipedia article (and probably shouldn't.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 01:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, maybe refine target to Twitter#Format where using @ to reply to a specific user is mentioned. As far as I know, this convention originated with Twitter, and its popularity led to it being widely adopted by other platforms (including Wikipedia - see {{reply to}}). Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 12:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refine to Twitter#Format per Ivanvector. --Rubbish computer 16:36, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not specific to Twitter. —Kusma (t·c) 11:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    An alternative would be to retarget to At sign#Contemporary usage. —Kusma (t·c) 12:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:08, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're both right, it's far more prominent than its original social network these days. Which means users are quite likely to come here to find information about it. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:22, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector: Then, how about it being deleted per WP:REDLINK, given that it's not exclusive to Twitter, just as I proved at the beginning of this sentence? Steel1943 (talk) 20:29, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because I think if the article was written, it wouldn't be at this title (it's not a very good one), and I have doubts that an entire article is warranted. We have information on it already at the section I suggested, and it does no harm to leave it there, unless a better target exists or is created. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:34, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to {{ping}}. Y'all may not have noticed, but in your replies there are at signs in front of them. (I don't have an at sign on my kb. boooooooo.) {{@}}, bizarrely, is a redirect to Template:No spam. Have can will worms. Si Trew (talk) 06:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That would make it a disallowed cross-namespace redirect. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 01:46, 17 October 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.

Suji (or Rava)[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) 14:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a redirect from two names, each one of which is used in various Indian languages, and also sometimes in Indian English in general, but aren't mentioned at the target. Suji flour or rava flour might make sense individually as redirects (e.g. to List of plants used in South Asian cuisine#Flour). However this redirect seems like a rather implausible search term. Not sure whether it should be retargeted to that same section, or deleted. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 12:19, 15 October 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.

Tendon (Japanese cuisine)[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) 14:22, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure whether this nomination is just a m:solution in search of a problem, but this title sounds like it could mean either (1) tendons & sinews made into stews and such in Japanese cuisine, which is covered at the slightly-oddly-named tendon (meal), or (2) the dish called tendon in Japanese (tenpura donburi, discussed at the current target). 210.6.254.106 (talk) 12:19, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying my nomination: I'd be fine either deleting this due to the WP:XY issue, or retargeting to Tendon (disambiguation) as a sort of {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 16:06, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to tendon (meal). From the article, donburi (literally "bowl") is just whatever meats or vegetables are at hand simmered and served over rice in a bowl; it might happen to be made with tendon (and in fact that is described very briefly at the article) but there is nothing particularly special about the tendon preparation, and the article does not suggest that "tendon" is short for "tenpura donburi" which would be a misspelling anyway. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:37, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment A dish called tendon is discussed at the Donburi article; it is not made from tendons/sinews and has nothing to do with the meaning of the word "tendon" in English. "Tendon" is not a misspelling for that dish (nor is tenpura a misspelling for tempura, it's a valid alternative transcription due to Japanese phonology). The reason I brought this to RFD was specifically because of the WP:XY issue: it's a correct name for two totally separate things. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 16:02, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see, yes, you're right. I read too quickly. Hrm. In that case
(after edit conflict)Or a hatnote to the dab page. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:11, 15 October 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.

My history[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) 14:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Super vague search term. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 10:11, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: Internet explorer is not the only browser that logs browsing history. And who would search for "My history" to get information about Internet explorer? That's absurd. -- Chamith (talk) 11:46, 15 October 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.

Tij.co.jp[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 October 22#Tij.co.jp

Cnn.co.jp[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 October 22#Cnn.co.jp

Pool betting[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 Betting pool. --BDD (talk) 14:18, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

i Retarget to Football pools. There is no need for this to redirect to Parimutuel (properly spelled Pari-Mutuel "mutual" or "common" or "combined" bet. That is just sending the dog around the houses, in English we should have it to the English word, which is "pool". Pool (bet) is red, as is pool (gambling). Pool, a DAB, does not list this sense of the word. Unfortunately our topics on gambling and betting are woefully inadequate, and I am trying to make them better. I smoke and drink and it is the third one I don't have, gambling, but my grandfather was a bookie's runner, so I know a lot about it. (I need to improve the article on tic-tac, for example, but that requires me getting on a pair of white gloves and you suffering to see my face.) Si Trew (talk) 09:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC) Si Trew (talk) 09:39, 15 October 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.

Template:Comma[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 October 22#Template:Comma

Awards Winners[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 List of prizes, medals and awards. --BDD (talk) 14:17, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To me this looks like a CSD#R3 candidate that was left in main space. I can't think of any good reason why this broad term should redirect to List of awards and honours won by S.L. Benfica players while representing their national teams specifically. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 06:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment @Sam Sailor: I'm all up against either deleting it, or turning it into a disambiguation page for the multiple awards that exist.--Threeohsix (talk) 12:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand you. Turning it into a DAB page sounds like a terrible idea. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 12:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If that's a terrible idea to rescue the term, then delete it.--Threeohsix (talk) 13:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 13:55, 15 October 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.

WP:DRIVEBY[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. I'll update the hatnotes and shortcut boxes. Any other desired cleanup can be performed by whomever. --BDD (talk) 14:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re-target to Wikipedia:Tagging pages for problems#Constructive tagging, which is where WP:DRIVEBYTAGGING goes. The section at WP:NPOV dispute just directs people to the other page for details anyway. It's very unhelpful that these go to different places and especially that the shorter one goes to the less useful place.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:24, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak retarget - as usual, I worry about breaking old conversations when we retarget project-side shortcuts, and would prefer to see the existing links corrected before retargeting this, but I think in this case the damage will be minimal, and the target already addresses the problem. Also, the nominated target is absolutely preferable to the current one. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It won't break old conversations, because the current target directly references and links to the proposed one. The actual location of the material on why not to do drive-by tagging is at the proposed target, and readers will get there either way. Presently they just get there the unnecessarily confusing and complicated way, if they click on WP:DRIVEBY: first being taken to an essay that isn't really about that, then clicking through to the one that is. It seems likely to me that the current target once covered this issue in more detail but that over time this material (either through direct merge or just gradual change) has moved to the other essay. Regardless, the present redirection situation does not get people efficiently to the material they're actually looking for.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ivanvector and SMcCandlish: - I've moved this to October 15th (as opposed to the 14th) as it was proposed on this date, albeit very early, which caused the link to this discussion on the redirect page to not work. I put this in the correct chronological order based on the timestamp as well. Regards,—Godsy(TALKCONT) 17:42, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK. I posted it to the page that was auto-opened for the posting.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  18:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom, and add the most of the second paragraph of the lead (the parts that aren't redundant) and a link to the former target, in some way to the new section target. - I'm always leery of possibly changing the meaning someone had (as Ivanvector said), so each case of instances like this is different. Any time a Wikipedia namespace page changes (hopefully by consensus in most cases) as they do over time, an intended meaning could be lost. However, the page history remains the same, what someone meant can always be found, because the version that corresponded with the time they made the post is still preserved. In this case it is reasonable to retarget. WP:DRIVEBY and WP:DRIVEBYTAGGING should go to the same place. My suggestion above adds all the info about "drive by tagging" that the former target has (and has had) that the new does not, negating any potential harm. I did a quick check of the page history and didn't see anything that has been removed to cause this redirect to be left at the current target (or to warrant more expansion of the new one).—Godsy(TALKCONT) 18:07, 16 October 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_October_15&oldid=1037881285"