Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 August 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 11[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 11, 2014.

Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive N[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. Performed by Nyttend (talk · contribs). See comment below. (Non-admin closure) — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 19:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Useless redirect. No one is going to look for this page title. Stefan2 (talk) 21:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
I created it by mistake while creating a new archive page. My apologies, yes go ahead and delete it.
Thanks, Cliffswallow-vaulting (talk) 21:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per G6 and G7 criteria. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 23:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleted. Redirects created by pagemoves normally aren't deleted, but that's because we don't want to produce linkrot by breaking on-wiki or off-wiki links. When the page existed under an implausible title for just a minute, nobody will have made links to it since its creation, so we won't hurt anything by trashing it. Nyttend (talk) 00:57, 12 August 2014 (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.

Israel Occupation Forces[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. The only arguments made in this discussion that reference Wikipedia policies and guidelines relevant to redirects are those wishing to keep this redirect, principally per WP:RNEUTRAL, while many of the delete opinions are apparently based on a misunderstanding of the purpose of redirects like this. 08:40, 10 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thryduulf (talk • contribs)

This is a procedural nomination from 24.47.134.133. He blanked the redirect with the summary of "Please delete this page. There is no such organization as the "Israel Occupation Forces," and redirecting this page to the Israel Defense Forces is not accurate and misleading. Thank you," which I have reverted because I don't like empty pages. The IP then left a note on my talkpage saying "the page is a slanderous and derogatory parody of the "Israel Defense forces" (the former page redirects to the latter). The Israel Occupation forces is a nonexistent entity and thus the page is inaccurate and does not belong on wikipedia." Piguy101 (talk) 19:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I, myself, am neutral. Piguy101 (talk) 19:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: this apprears to be a proper POV redirect with some off-site usage of the term. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 23:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please, read before !voting: here, on Wikipedia, we only include material if it is notable. When doing so, we choose neutral article names and maintain neutrality in the article. But some people come to Wikipedia because they look up a biased wording or specially-crafted term from POV material. Instead of ignoring such search queries we redirect them to our neutral articles with neutral titles, discharging this bias. That is: POV redirects are Wikipedia's weapon against POV. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 19:38, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: this is a hateful redirect and has no educational or constructive relevance to the IDF. Regarding what Dmitrij D. Czarkoff said; the only people who would claim to have such a POV would be those who incite hate and violence against the Israel DEFENSE forces. I, for one, have never heard, seen, or read the terminology "Israel Occupation forces" other than on the provocative wikipedia page that we are currently discussing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.47.134.133 (talk) 01:28, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, please scroll up the page and re-read this vote:" Strong delete It's not about whether you think the IDF "occupies" the Palestinian territories. It's about the actual name of the IDF. The official English name is the Israel Defense Forces. There is no such thing as the "Israel Occupation Forces.... " Shalom (Hello • Peace) 06:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.47.134.133 (talk)
— Duplicate !vote: 24.47.134.133 (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.
Please read the previous discussions and guideline linked in my posting above, and in Nyttend’s just below. Briefly, a principal purpose of redirects is to make terms that are ‘wrong’, in one way or another, lead readers to an appropriate article nonetheless. That includes not only ‘innocent‘ misspellings but also biased or misleading names, like this one, that should never be used to title an actual article.—Odysseus1479 04:56, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Our standards for redirects note that blatantly partisan redirects are sometimes appropriate, and the relevant section of those guidelines note that one appropriate use of a partisan redirect is a situation in which "The subject matter of articles [is] represented by some sources outside Wikipedia in non-neutral terms". A quick Google search reveals numerous uses of this term to refer to the IDF, so this is clearly the kind of situation covered by the redirects standards. Nyttend (talk) 01:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Although such redirects may sometimes be appropriate, please enlighten me as to what is appropriate in this case. The google results I found all come from terrorist organizations' websites such as electronicintifada.com aljazeera.com . Do you believe that terrorism's POV is the correct one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christinamorsi (talk • contribs) 02:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing admin, please note that Christina has double-voted. Christina, please note that we have a neutral point of view policy — we try to represent multiple perspectives when they exist, especially in contentious situations such as Israel-Palestinian issues. We need to present the Israeli POV and the Palestinian POV without saying which is the correct one. Nyttend (talk) 02:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE Dear Nyttend, please note that Christina was not talking about Palestinians. Although many terrorist factions do reside and operate amongst the Palestinians, I believe Christina was speaking specifically about terror groups. Again, there is no clear POV issue at hand; The official and internationally recognized name is Israel Defense Forces. Israel Occupation Forces is a made up name for a made up organization which has no legitimacy in the non-terrorist and/or international vernacular. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheEagleScout (talk • contribs) 03:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC) — TheEagleScout (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment it can possibly be retargetted to Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 06:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It redirects to the article the person would probably have in mind. Nytten has given what I think is the correct argument about POV redirects. We make them within reason. It's not totally hateful or implausible even for someone with a neutral POV. It is only incorrect according to some but not all Israeli views, and even those do not make it "hateful" . An improper Redirect would be something like "Army of Occupation" → IDF without the specification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 09:31, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the real improper redirect would be something like Middle Eastern Murder Force to IDF. Army of Occupation would changed to disambiguation. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:12, 18 August 2014 (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.

Bangerz: Reloaded[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. Thryduulf (talk) 08:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, because this project was nothing more than a rumor that has faded as fast as it came about. WikiRedactor (talk) 17:28, 11 August 2014 (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.

Replacement parameter[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 September 10#Replacement parameter

Jeremy Kehrt[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. Thryduulf (talk) 08:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non notable minor league ballplayer... doesnt meet the notability requirements for the list page so redirect is unnecessary Spanneraol (talk) 15:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes he does not meet the inclusion criteria and he is not included in the list.Spanneraol (talk) 18:55, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He is mentioned in table at Los Angeles Dodgers minor league players#Double-A, which is enough to keep this redirect. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 21:06, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The page has information on him, and notability isn't a criterion for redirects. We sometimes delete redirects to encourage the creation of articles, because redirects can hinder article creation — that's part of a reason for having this redirect, since he shouldn't have an article, and the redirect makes it less likely that someone will create an article about him. Nyttend (talk) 00:59, 12 August 2014 (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.

Aholic[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 16:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete. As -aholic exists, a search should find the concept anyway. Somewhat confusing, as the word (without hyphen) is never used in the real world. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep -aholic exists, so aholic can also exist (we shouldn't expect people to be experts at writing dictionaries, if this suffix is important enough to merit a redirect, then this form should also exist). -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:14, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Nonsense. WP:Redirects are cheap, but one that is clearly grammatically wrong and would show up in the default search is not useful. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You can easily strip it from search results with {{R from typo}} ; whether it is grammatically correct or not is immaterial to the existence of the redirect. Indeed, it is useful because it is not grammatically correct, since not everyone writes dictionaries and grammar books. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:59, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    NOTE if -aholic is deleted, then "aholic" can be deleted, but if "-aholic" is kept, then "aholic" should also be kept. IMO. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) (my IP address has rolled over) 09:00, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: added -aholic to nomination. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 17:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • czarkoff: You misrepresented the nominator in doing so. The nominator's deletion rationale depends on -aholic being kept. Now nobody will know for sure which of these two is supposed to be deleted or kept. — Keφr 16:36, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I just added similar redirect, as the discussion with nom and one participant (at that time) was concerning both. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 17:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per WP:R#DELETE criteria 2 and 8: not words, not typos, not mentioned in target. They just confuse readers making them think it is a real word. We just should not redirect suffixes per WP:NOTDICT. And indeed Wiktionary has corresponding article. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 17:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget all four to the disambiguation page Holic, and expand said disambiguation page's Wiktionary soft redirect to include -aholic and -oholic. Don't delete the versions without a dash because I'm under the impression that people assume typing an initial minus in Wikipedia's search box means "exclude this word" as it does on web search engines. --Damian Yerrick (talk) 22:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The suffix "-aholic" is well known in the real world. People may want information about it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:39, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And where do we provide information about it? Not at the target article, at least. --BDD (talk) 13:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 13:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As Anthony notes, the concept is well known and commonly used to indicate addiction. We can always have a hatnote on Addiction telling readers to go to Wiktionary if they want to read about etymology and other dictionary-type things that won't belong in an encyclopedia article. Nyttend (talk) 19:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This nomination has been damaged, and most of the comments no longer relate to my original nomination. I intended aholic to be deleted, and -aholic kept. One editor, above, says that's absurd. I say, again, that if -aholic is there as a redirect, anyone typing "aholic" in the search box will find it. We don't have or need {{R from incorrect punctuation}}. Actually, we do, but it redirects to an incorrect form, {{R from modification}}. It needs to be {{R from incorrect modification}}. We still don't need it, as Wikipedia search will find the article, and it's an unlikely (not to be immediately recognized) typo. Come to think of it, retarget all to soft redirects to Wiktionary may be a better approach. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep both because they are both useful search terms as noted above. See also my comment on oholic below. Thryduulf (talk) 08:35, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment.This is not a likely misspelling. I tend to go with Rubin. the -aholic suffix is all from the word alcoholic (chocaholic, etc), as neologisms after alcoholic was invented, according to your favourite dictionary in the 1930s or 1920s or whenever. "Aholic" should mean with the a- prefix, not holic, that is to say, not addicted to anything (as atheist means having no god, for example). The OED as a parallel describes "dis–" as "having privative force", that is to say to remove something, whereas "a–" means simply not having it in the first place. This is a nonce word. Si Trew (talk) 22:26, 15 September 2014 (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.

Oholic[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 16:03, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

move (without redirect) to -oholic. Again, a search should find the concept (once the move is done). The word (without the hyphen) is not used in the real world. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 13:30, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per nom. Yes, that's what I meant to say: as the IP says, if -oholic should exist, the hyphen-less version also ought to exist. Spelling/punctuation variants, such as the omission of an initial hyphen, ought to have redirects. Nyttend (talk) 19:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Nonsense. If -oholic should exist, then oholic should not. Redirects are cheap, but redirects that are automatically found by search are unnecessary. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. The search engines (internal or external) are only a subset of the ways that people use to navigate Wikipedia, and methods such as following links, searching from the url bar, directly entering the URL, following bookmarks, etc. to oholic will not lead people to what they are looking for if it does not exist, the existence or otherwise of -oholic is irrelevant to this. Thryduulf (talk) 08:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I know a chap in Ireland who after twelve pints of Guinness checks himself in for room and board to the Guardai under the name O'Hollick. If you believe that you'll believe anything – even believe that this is an English word. Not in any of my dictionaries. Si Trew (talk) 22:32, 15 September 2014 (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.

Time in Colorado[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 isn't consensus about whether this should be an article or not, but there does seem to be consensus against having this redirect at present. Thryduulf (talk) 10:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All other bluelinks at {{Time in the United States}} are articles (some minimal, some extensive), and having a bluelink for Colorado makes it appear that no article is needed for the state. Nyttend (talk) 13:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I don't see an encyclopedic topic here. Apparently there are no time-related nuances in Colorado that would warrant an article, thus defeating WP:RED rationale. It seems more appropriate to create such redirects for all similar states and replace them with [[Time in the United States|other]] link in the template. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 23:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There aren't any at the present time, but an article could easily discuss time in Colorado before standard time zones were created in 1883, as well as developments in the state's timekeeping (e.g. observance of daylight saving time) between 1883 and 2014. Nyttend (talk) 01:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does this discussion indeed belong to the separate article? My concern is that this article will end up as collection of trivia that could be described better in Time in the United States. Eg. the topic of DST observance definitely would benefit from more context, and timekeeping in Colorado before 1883 was not much different from neighbour states either I suppose. (I may easily be wrong here.) — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 01:09, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Someone familiar with Colorado history (in other words, not I) could put together a discussion of time-related differences from city to city, as well as the process of implementing time zones. Numerous states have gone without daylight saving time at various points; we could mention Colorado's resistance to DST or the fact that it never resisted it. Meanwhile, the state's not always been uniformly Mountain Time — see File:Time zone map of the United States 1913.tif, which shows that a little bit in the northeast was Central. Nyttend (talk) 01:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Preferably delete. There's probably no reason for many of the links in that navbox to be blue; it may make sense to pare it down at some point. If this had to be blue, Nyttend and Dmitrij, what would you think of simply retargeting to Mountain Time Zone? --BDD (talk) 16:06, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still not fond of the idea, since it makes it look like we have an article when we don't and could, although it would be marginally better than the current setup. Nyttend (talk) 16:14, 2 October 2014 (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.

MediaMatter.com[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) 16:07, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The correct website is mediamatters.org. This redirect is wrong in that it:

  1. omits the plural 's'
  2. uses .com instead of .org.

It should be deleted because it is factually incorrect and not useful. Contrast this with MediaMatters.com, which is useful, because it is a registered domain name of the organization that redirects to their official website, and therefore is useful in Wikipedia as well. Senator2029 “Talk” 10:38, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: combination of plausible typos make this overall implausible. This URL may lead to completely different contant, making this redirect confusing. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 23:49, 11 August 2014 (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.

Jungguk[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 September 24

Tsaina[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) 10:09, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what language this is, but whatever it is, not relevant to the target. - TheChampionMan1234 03:37, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update According to Wikidata, it is the spelling in several languages (tl:Tsina war:Tsina ceb:Republikang Popular sa Tsina ilo:Tsína] etc) But none of these languages are related to the target.- TheChampionMan1234 04:38, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Update "Tsaina" does not appear to be any language, also according to Wikidata (see d:Q29520 and d:Q148 - TheChampionMan1234 04:38, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I am not sure what it is, but I see no indication that it is connected to the subject. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 23:54, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Filipinos do call the country "Tsina" but our language didn't originate from China. --Lenticel (talk) 00:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it maybe did (Austronesian peoples), but this is so long ago that it doesn't change anything. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:15, 13 August 2014 (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.

ZRG[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 Mirgan language. JohnCD (talk) 10:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not an abbreviation for China. - TheChampionMan1234 03:36, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TL;DR: I created it and see no reason to keep it.
"ZRG" is not an abbreviation for "China"; I intended it as an abbreviation for Zhōnghuá Rénmín Gònghéguó. I created "ZRG" in May 2008 as a redirect not to "China" but to "People's Republic of China", which at that time was not another redirect but the location of the actual article. In September 2011, somebody moved the "People's Republic of China" article to "China". Before that move, having a redirect from "ZRG" to "People's Republic of China" perhaps made some sense for when you wanted to go to "People's Republic of China" but were too lazy to type "People's Republic of China" and wanted to avoid fully loading an article on "China" in general and somehow didn't know the common abbreviation "PRC".
Per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Redirects from foreign languages, "examples of appropriate use of foreign-language redirects include original or official names … of places". But it doesn't say anything about abbreviations of such names, and I don't think the abbreviation ZRG is used much, either officially or inofficially. Pinyin abbreviations are very common in URIs of Chinese sites, but almost all such URI abbreviations I've seen didn't skip syllables, so Zhōnghuá Rénmín Gònghéguó would be zhrmghg, not zrg. To sum up, ZRG is probably just an unknown, made-up, at best very uncommon (in either language) abbreviation of the official romanization (presidential order no. 37, §18) of the state's official name in the state's official standard language. Wikipeditor (talk) 07:51, 14 August 2014 (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.

China;[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) 10:12, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible typo. - TheChampionMan1234 03:32, 11 August 2014 (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.

List of comedies[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 listify. --BDD (talk) 16:29, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous. No real one target for this anyway. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 01:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • disambiguate or listify, we also have other lists this can be used to point to such as List of comedy films -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 07:04, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate, because the vast majority of comedies are stage plays, in addition to what 65.94.169.222 says. Nyttend (talk) 13:05, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert into a list of lists (in this case, different lists of comedy types)--Lenticel (talk) 05:41, 19 August 2014 (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/2014_August_11&oldid=1138579406"