Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 May 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 5
May 7 >

May 6[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 6, 2014.

Sunscorch[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 Leaf scorch by unanimous consensus. --BDD (talk) 16:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what's going on here. Looking at sunscorch -wikipedia, this term refers to a condition in plants, perhaps similar to (but not the same as) animal sunburn. If this term is a synonym for sun scald or leaf scorch or something, we could retarget. Otherwise, I think we're looking at WP:REDLINK deletion. --BDD (talk) 21:53, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per one of BDD's suggestions, though I can see the others I think that is unlikely search term unless you are a regular listener to Gardener's Question Time. Let the search engine do it; it has got a little better in the eight years I have been editing here. Not much, admittedly, but a little. Si Trew (talk) 22:42, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget, probably to leaf scorch. In Pests, Diseases and Disorders of Garden Plants, Stefan Buczacki and Keith Harris state that high temperatures can induce sun scald on bark and fruit, but then add that "Occasionally leaves, especially of glasshouse or house plants, can be scorched in a similar way .... Most commonly the scorch symptoms result in papery, pale brownish patches on the affected parts." PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:23, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know it is better to redirect to plants being scorched rather than humans being sunburnt. Can we at least agree, before we argue that, that all of them should go one way or another to the same target? Si Trew (talk) 11:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All redirecting to the same place seems fine to me, and as per PaleCloudedWhite's suggestion, leaf scorch would be the best choice. The two pages leaf scorch and sun scald should have hatnotes directing to one another, which I've just added. Leaf scorch is a better target because its effects are more noticeable to lay people, whereas sun scald seems unlikely to be familiar except to specialists. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'Agree with Sminthopsis84. I think you are right to redirect them to the plants instead of the animals. I haven't heard Stefan Buczacki on Gardener's Question Time for years – did he jump or was he pushed? He was a favourite when Clay Jones presented it, may he ever rest in peace. Si Trew (talk) 16:05, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At least Clay Jones is still pushing up the daisies. Si Trew (talk) 02:11, 9 May 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.

Ombre (hairstyle)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 May 19#Ombre (hairstyle)

Anberlin's Fifth Studio Album[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) 16:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Anberlin's fifth studio album, which is entitled Dark Is the Way, Light Is a Place and was released in 2010, now has its own well-fleshed-out article. An article was created at this title in early 2010 and was quickly redirected, essentially, as a WP:CRYSTAL violation. That's fine, but "Anberlin's fifth studio album" is not a plausible search term for Anberlin nor for Dark Is the Way, Light Is a Place; this placeholder-style article title is moot, since the album in question now has a name and was released years ago (they are now working on their seventh album, which also has a name). The redirect history has nothing worth saving; it's two sentences of speculation on the album months before its release, with no sourcing. Chubbles (talk) 20:01, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Chubbles.

Anberlin's first studio album
Anberlin's first album
Anberlin's second studio album
Anberlin's second album
Anberlin's third studio album
Anberlin's third album
Anberlin's fourth studio album
Anberlin's fourth album
Anberlin's sixth studio album
Anberlin's sixth album
Anberlin's seventh studio album
Anberlin's seventh album

I am not going to list all the other numbers because there's quite a lot of em. I think that list establishes this is the nigger in the woodpile. Si Trew (talk) 16:58, 7 May 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.

Category:0 BC births[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was procedural close. I don't know if this is stated anywhere, but category redirects are discussed at CFD rather than RFD, probably because they're not true redirects. I'll transfer over the nomination for you. --BDD (talk) 19:05, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems really unnecessary as stated on talk page. Jsharpminor (talk) 18:55, 6 May 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.

Spot-winged[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 May 24#Spot-winged

April 31[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 May 1. --BDD (talk) 16:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cannot find a use for this, I don't know why anyone would type this. TheChampionMan1234 12:43, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I mentioned this at the RfD for February 30 but can't find it (BDD will when he wakes up). I went through all the other months as well. It's exactlyt half-and-half: six have "overdates" if we can call them that for brevity and six don't. Si Trew (talk) 13:16, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And we have or have not: January 32, February 30, February 31, March 32, April 31, May 32, June 31, July 32, August 32, September 31, October 32, November 31, December 32. Messieurs et dames, faites vos jeux. Si Trew (talk) 20:47, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, it was March 32 not February 30, no wonder I couldn't find it. I dunno how others do it but I never seem to be able to pull up past discussions in a search. Si Trew (talk) 08:09, 13 April 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) 16:51, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget and tag as suggested above. Do the same for all the redlinks and non-articles linked above (i.e. don't touch February 30 and its ilk), for reasons of consistency. If this discussion results in a delete, someone should probably mass-nominate (or just nuke?) the rest. --NYKevin 03:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: This is a cosmetic relist. This discussion is just awaiting closure, but kicking it down the road superficially shrinks the backlog.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems harmless. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:24, 9 May 2014 (UTC).
Be aware that some of these dates do exist as concepts, because of calender adjustments, literary conceits or other oddities. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:24, 9 May 2014 (UTC).
Comment And how many would you like? Shall we have January 365 or February 2079? Those that exist, as literary conceits, concepts, or calendar adjustments, are present already (e.g. February 30). Those that are not written should be WP:REDLINK to encourage their creation. September 1752 does not exist (the month that the British Empire and her Colonies changed from the Julian to Gregorian calendar). So you have't a leg to stand on. Si Trew (talk) 04:14, 12 May 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.

Insurgent attack on Fort Hood[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. Though the commentators are split on whether this redirect should be deleted, the arguments and policy clearly point this way. Redirects are solely search aids and the lack of neutrality is not a ground for deletion; see WP:RNEUTRAL that states "Perceived lack of neutrality in redirect names is therefore not a sufficient reason for their deletion.". The default position is that redirects are kept. For deletion a ground of WP:RFD#DELETE must normally be present and no commentator has suggested such a ground. I also take the points that there is no ambiguity and that this is a used redirect. Finally, this is a long established redirect so deletion could break external links. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 21:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While redirects are allowed to be non-neutral, this phrase is completely unattested outside of Wikipedia; see "Insurgent attack on Fort Hood" -wikipedia. You can call Nidal Hasan an Islamist, a terrorist, whatever, but he wasn't an "insurgent" in any meaningful sense. This title implies some Afghan or Iraqi militants attacked Fort Hood. BDD (talk) 20:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. — Scott • talk 13:41, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. For some reason the BBC always call these people "insurgents" now, I suppose they are not allowed to call them "terrorists" or "freedom fighters" or whatever, so that is what they call them. So, Keep as likely search term. Si Trew (talk) 01:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Si Trew. The redirect gets uses above background noise, and there is no other article this could be referring to (that I know of anyway) so there is no reason to delete. Thryduulf (talk) 12:01, 7 April 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) 16:14, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or (weak) retarget to Fort Hood shooting. I'd rather this redirect be deleted per nom, but if it has to remain ... well, umm ... there's a disambiguation page. Steel1943 (talk) 13:58, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Incidentally Ford shooting also redirects to that DAB. I am not sure that is a good redirect. Si Trew (talk) 22:05, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That has now been resolved. --BDD (talk) 16:10, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: This is a cosmetic relist. This discussion is just awaiting closure, but kicking it down the road superficially shrinks the backlog.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@@Steel1943: Arrrgh, sorry I just had a minor heart attack from Steely's grammar: "Due to them participating"... how about "because he participated"? It takes talent to make three grammatical errors in four words – I have to try really hard to do that. "Due to" does not mean "Because", see Fowler. I am not "them", I am singular. "participating" is continuous present tense, not past tense. After I fetch a bucket, I will remark that I haven't seen Steel1943 for a while, I hope he is OK, a very intelligent and useful contributor here. Hence the ping – you all right Steel? Si Trew (talk) 04:23, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonTrew: Ha, that was my "trying-to-be-legally-correct-without-revealing-too-much-information" side coming out of me. But, then again, since you have openly identified yourself as a male several times on Wikipedia, I will give you that respect from here on out. Duly noted! Steel1943 (talk) 21:33, 12 May 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.

Varnasrama[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 is no claim as to what makes either of these two articles related to Varnasrama. It seems to be a different topic all together. If someone wishes to create an article on the subject, that's perfectly fine. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 22:40, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Varna (Hinduism) + Ashrama (stage) = Varnasrama. If Varnasrama page is redirected to Varna article means the user may be confused like Varna = Varnasrama. So delete the redirect page.

Take this link as reference. [1]--Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 14:35, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Convert Varnasrama into a disambiguation page. I see what the nominator's point is: this term could refer to both subjects. So, thus, disambiguate, not delete. Steel1943 (talk) 15:59, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Can that not be dealt with as a hatnote per WP:TWODABS? Si Trew (talk) 20:48, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonTrew: Only if a primary topic has been established for this term. I currently do not see one established. Steel1943 (talk) 22:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I read the reference, hurriedly. Keep and add a short section at Varna (Hinduism), referring to the website given. Si Trew (talk) 00:05, 30 April 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) 16:22, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If we can't have a standalone article on this concept, I'd rather leave this to search results. As far as I can tell, varnasrama isn't the same as either varna or ashrama, so a dab doesn't make sense to me. I'm thinking of, perhaps Loving-kindness and imagining it as a dab linking to Love and Kindness. How would that work? --BDD (talk) 16:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Steel1943, could you do a mockup of what that dab might look like? --BDD (talk) 19:33, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • BDD, the DAB page would have just been the two aforementioned subjects that the nominator thinks could refer to both subjects. However, as above, it seems like the term may not refer to one of the two subjects. So, I'm really not sure anymore, given the above conversation. Steel1943 (talk)|
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:AN/S[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 deleted per criterion G8 due to the redirect's target being deleted. Steel1943 (talk) 21:46, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cute, but ultimately unhelpful inside joke. Should not mislead users with this mis-direct. Delete. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:04, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No need to rain on this parade. Mark it with the humour banner and leave it. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 16:52, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if that works - if a redirect has a humor banner, it won't be seen as the user will just get redirected. If the redirect doesn't redirect, then we're saving a wiki-space redirect for a joke page that doesn't even redirect - thus pointless.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You make a good point, but in that case what does it matter that there's a redirect pointing to that page? If there were a pressing need for WP:AN/S to redirect somewhere else more important then fair enough, but there isn't. I don't really understand how it will "mislead" users; I can't see who would type in "AN/S" trying to get anywhere else. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 20:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, someone has already posted what seems like a real complaint there. The problem is, someone can say (indeed, they already have), just post your request at WP:AN/S, and an inexperienced/clueless user will fall right into the trap. We shouldn't make it easier, no matter how funny it may seem to us. I just think that particular namespace of administrator-board-redirects should not be misused. call me boring... --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, you're boring. Frivolous complaints clog up ANI and this redirect is a perfect way of making it easier to shift those clueless posters to somewhere where they don't cause congestion, merely amusement. --RexxS (talk) 13:16, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I created the noticeboard, obviously (it's in my userspace) and also the redirect, which is in Wikipedia space, so I'd rather not register a formal "keep" here; let the uninvolved decide. But I'd like to suggest for your consideration a) that the redirect is useful, and b) that it's not needed for any other noticeboard.
The redirect is useful, in that it's in use. People mention it.[2] Plus, an editor recently made these edits to Talk:Jimmy Wales, probably intending them for User talk:Jimmy Wales, and Johnuniq reverted with some advice in the edit summary: "remove: wrong page, you want User talk:Jimbo Wales although WP:AN/S is more appropriate". The user followed the advice and indeed posted the text next at the dedicated noticeboard for clueless complaints — the first real complaint there![3] And was that not a good thing? It saved not only WP:ANI but User talk:Jimbo Wales from bloat. Note also that the IP had by then already received excellent advice from User:NeilN,[4] in the form of a reference to a page dedicated to the sources of Raju, many of which sources were being offered by the IP. (Great work by Joshua Jonathan there.) Absolutely serious and useful advice, to which the IP was not receptive. S/he did go to the source page and edit it, but not usefully and not showing any comprehension of it.[5] I don't see what we can do next, except, indeed, invite him/her to a noticeboard for clueless complaints. But, you cry, this RfD does not deny the usefulness of the Sitush noticeboard; what about the usefulness of the redirect? I'm coming to that: would Johnuniq have referred the IP user to the special Sitush noticeboard if he, John, hadn't had the easily remembered redirect WP:AN/S in his mind? I don't know. He might. Since I've now pinged John, perhaps he'll come and tell us.
The redirect is not needed for any other noticeboard. As Basalisk says, "If there were a pressing need for WP:AN/S to redirect somewhere else more important then fair enough, but there isn't." If a Wikipedia space noticeboard which that shortcut would be appropriate for is created one day, then indeed fair enough, but that day it'll turn out that the elasticity of Wikipedia will make it extremely easy to re-direct this redirect. If we want to keep the redirect WP:AN/S clean and pure and folded away with lavender in the meantime, so be it, even though it seems overly pious to me. Bishonen | talk 22:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Bishonen you can do whatever you like in your userspace, but i dont think we should condone trap-redirects from sounds-like-official-titles which only serve the purpose of intentionally misleading new editors. Im sure you can find other ways to do so. If we let this particular cross-ns redirect stay what would prevent WP:AN/B and all the other letters of the alphabet, and then people can get into using unicode redirects to be even sneakier. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:34, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
…? I'm a little taken aback by the ABF here. You're sure I can find other ways to intentionally mislead new editors? Gee, that went nuclear fast. Is my reputation for what you call sneakiness and entrapment worse than I thought?
Furthermore, it's very wiki-politically correct of you to AGF that the dynamic IPs and caste-warrior sock drawers at pages like Raju are genuinely new users. But perhaps you might ask Sitush and the other people who defend these pages (but it's mainly Sitush, and that's why there are so many clueless complaints), if they think it's a reasonable assumption. Some of them may be new some of the time, of course.
Also, I think it's only to somewhat experienced editors such as you or me, that the WP:AN/x formula sounds "official", and that's because we've seen its variants a thousand times. The logic of saying WP:AN/S would (intentionally, yet) mislead new users is flawed. It might momentarily mislead tribal elders such as RexxS or John (only until they looked at the actual page, of course), but how would it sound any more "official" to the genuinely new than any other alphabet soup? Bishonen | talk 15:22, 7 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Bish, I'm not assuming any bad faith at all. You, and everyone else defending this redirect, explicitly are doing so because it could possibly work - i.e. it could possibly mislead someone, and indeed you were happy when it actually did. Now, whether misleading troublesome users is good or bad for the wiki I'll let wiser souls decide, I just don't think we should sanction it with a trick redirect. The very point of the redirect is simple - to mislead, and the way it has been used, to date, is to mislead, so again I'm not assuming anything, you've all been very upfront about it. I have no idea what goes on at caste pages and I hope I never do - and if there really is a need for a different forum and a way to ease the pressure on Sitush, then create a real board, under wikiproject India or somewhere that is serious, where centralized discussions about caste issues can be had. But I think this approach is still mean spirited - I'm not going to nominate your userpage for deletion, but the redirect has to go. We have a friendly system of warnings for obvious vandals, and our templates still direct them once they're blocked to reasonable, serious pages - we don't send them off to boards where other admins will poke at them and laugh.
Finally re: alphabet soup, I'm not convinced - every day I learn one new acronym or redirect to some crucial section or key board. I think a complete newbie with 3 edits may not understand the context, but one with 500 or 1000 who has already seen references to WP:AN and WP:ANI may be successfully trolled. We have to remember also that English is not a first language for all editors here, and humor or sarcasm is interpreted differently by different people. Again, it's an itsy bitsy redirect and you can still have fun without it, just keep it to userspace - and I'd suggest putting the humor tag back on, but I guess that would spoil the fun?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:36, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be missing my point. I have no notion of misleading anybody, least of all new editors. (It never occurred to me that anybody would actually post at the Sitush noticeboard. It took three months before anybody did, even though it's been recommended in Sitush's edit notice for most of that time.) I really don't care that much about the redirect, nor in fact about the userpage — it has perhaps served its purpose (which was to register support for Sitush and cheer him up a little, because his wikilife seemed pretty miserable). Any admin should feel free to fucking speedy either of them. But I wasn't expecting the kinds of slurs to my good intentions that you have posted: "which only serve the purpose of intentionally misleading new editors. Im sure you can find other ways to do so". If you didn't mean that the way it reads, why don't you man up and apologize, or alternatively stop dancing around and take ownership of your words. Bishonen | talk 17:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]
I think you're missing mine. I first came across this here, where @Liz: pointed out that this redirect may be confusing. Read what you wrote above: The redirect is useful, in that it's in use...The user followed the advice and indeed posted the text next at the dedicated noticeboard for clueless complaints — the first real complaint there. And was that not a good thing?. You also said, earlier, the following: Sitush has been known to use the shortcut to point the group "users of extreme cluelessness complaining on his page" (this is in my opinion a group distinct from the group "general user") to the dedicated noticeboard. Do them good. Anyway, none of them have posted on the Sitush noticeboard yet (which is frustrating, but that's by the way)... (here, in response to @NE Ent:). Thus, in your own words, you are saying this redirect is useful, in that it will send clueless editors to a board where they will post things that will henceforth be ignored (or they will be mocked), and you have in the past expressed disappointment that it hadn't yet trapped anyone. When I said "I'm sure you can find other ways to do so", what I meant was, you could find other reasonable shortcuts that aren't so close to the core admin boards, or even simple things like hiding wiki links like this: "post your complaint at WP:AN/S", etc, which is what Sitush did in his edit notice and which results in the full title appearing in the URL, unlike when you use a redirect. I wasn't suggesting that you regularly walk around the wiki trying to trap new users, and I'm sorry if you took it that way - I simply meant that you, and people defending this specific redirect, clearly intend the redirect to mislead (now maybe you say this is not intended to mislead new users, it is intended to mislead clueless users, but I think that's semantic, it's not that big of a difference). You also clearly intend the whole thing as a big inside joke, and I'm sure Sitush appreciates your effort to lighten his load, and I have nothing against humor. I just think the redirect goes one step too far. If you didn't intend to mislead, you wouldn't have created it, and you wouldn't be celebrating your first victim. Maybe the victim is a caste-warrior, maybe they deserve it, who knows - but the intent to mislead is clear from the way the redirect is named and cannot be denied, and your removal of the {{Humor}} tag from the page in question furthers the point. The only corrective action I'm suggesting is not sanctioning such cross-namespace redirects with one that is very close to a number of serious admin boards. See [6] for example, the vast majority of these are serious, except Wikipedia:AN/ISUCKSTHELIFEOUTOFYOU. You're acting all offended that I dare to suggest you are trying to mislead users, yet you openly celebrate your success at having done so.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is and will continue to be an enormous amount of nonsense in the topic underlying WP:AN/S—a really gigantic pool of muck. The editors who try to maintain related articles need all the support they can get, and a very unusual humor redirect is an important tool to show support for those who have to deal with a very unusual situation. The benefit of keeping AN/S is that humor is a good defense against relentless attacks, while no benefit would arise from deleting it. Johnuniq (talk) 01:45, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the redirect, Keep the page. WP:POINTy. We can't have WP namespace redirecting to user namespace, sorry. It is a bit of a personal attack as well. I do realise it is good-humoured and is not intended seriously, but unfortunately it can seem that way. I've tried the same kind of thing with redirects or stub articles for Countries that are not the United States, Oxygen thief and things like that, and they've very quickly got deleted. Si Trew (talk) 07:13, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I really don't believe there's any personal attack. I am absolutely sure that Sitush is very happy with the page and the redirect. --RexxS (talk) 13:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The only people who attack me are the clueless. Let them vent where it doesn't attract more drama. - Sitush (talk) 15:58, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe there is any personal attack either, and I said as much: I said that it can seem like that to a casual reader. We are not here to examine our own arses. Si Trew (talk) 16:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Frivolous complaints clog up ANI and this redirect is a perfect way of making it easier to shift those clueless posters to somewhere where they don't cause congestion, merely amusement. --RexxS (talk) 13:16, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refuse jurisdiction. This is a patently a good-natured spat between three editors that should be discussed between them and not come to RfD. Turn away, refuse jurisdiction: let them sort it out amongst themselves. I wish Wikipedia occasionally was a bit more humourous; User:Sitush has replied in good nature and obviously doesn't find the page offensive, the problem is that a casual reader will come to it and find this to-and-fro instead of an encyclopaedia. Much as I enjoyed it, I think the page should stay but the redirect should go, and then to continue it at RfD is compounding the felony. Si Trew (talk) 16:37, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit confused. Isn't RfD the proper jurisdiction for deleting a redirect? I have no trouble with humor either, and have even conducted some humorous things on my own - I just think this cross-namespace redirect with a title similar to many other official admin boards should not remain.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Si Trew, God only knows what you're talking about. Who are these three users? What is the spat? Bishonen | talk 17:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep--though I'm obviously somewhat involved here, given the topping of Drmies one can order with their complaint. The fact that the thing is called "CLUELESS complaint generator" (and the image of the dog, perhaps) is a dead giveaway to anyone but the clueless--and those clueless ones have generated an enormous amount of hullabaloo over nothing, causing disruption for many. In other words, that the redirect would mislead (the rationale for the RfD) is not easy to see, given that competence is required. Drmies (talk) 17:36, 7 May 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.
I don't know a dog called "CLUELESS". I suppose that makes me clueless, then. In-jokes belong on blogs, not on Wikipedia. 01:55, 9 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonTrew (talk • contribs)

2013 World Championship[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) 16:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are of course many world championships this year, the formule one tournament is just one of them so it should be changed. Either deleted or being turned into a dab page similar to 2011 World Championships. FakirNL (talk) 13:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.No-one will actually create the DAB, unless you say you will. Si Trew (talk) 22:54, 6 May 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.

2014 World Championship[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. Go ahead and make a dab if you'd like. --BDD (talk) 16:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are of course many world championships this year, the ice hockey tournament is just one of them so it should be changed. Either deleted or being turned into a dab page similar to 2011 World Championships. FakirNL (talk) 13:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.No-one will actually create the DAB, unless you say you will. Si Trew (talk) 22:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

:::Retarget to 2014 FIFA World Cup. On reflection, that would seem to me to be most relevant. I don't know if it needs a hatnote to the target for ice hockey, since 2014 World Cup redirects there. Si Trew (talk) 07:16, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Churchill said an Englishman cannot draw a line in the sand without blurring it. I am doing the same. There is 2014 World Cup (disambiguation) and it should probably be {{Redirect to disambiguation page}} to there. Si Trew (talk) 11:10, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For other years there have been separate dab pages for "world cup" and "world championships", 2010 World Cup (disambiguation) (football primary) and 2010 World Championships, 2011 World Cup and 2011 World Championships. - FakirNL (talk) 17:39, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure like wot FakirNL replies. Those you gave are all DABs. In the singular 2010 World Championship redirects to 2010 World Championships (DAB), 2011 World Championship redirects to 2011 World Championships (DAB), 2012 World Championship does not exist but 2012 World Championships does; 2013 World Championship redirects to 2013 Formula One season (I note there is no redirect at 2013 Formula 1 season) and is mentioned above here at RfD whereas 2013 World Championships does not exist. On that scant evidence 2014 World Championship should, on that pattern, redirect to a DAB at 2014 World Championships. I pluck at random 1986 World Championship and 1986 World Championships, 1999 World Championship and 1999 World Championships (a DAB). There's a pattern here but not a very strong one. Si Trew (talk) 02:31, 8 May 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.

Central Nation[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 May 24#Central Nation

Praise of Wikipedia[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 May 24#Praise of Wikipedia

Ukania[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 Tom Nairn. --BDD (talk) 16:36, 13 May 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.

Small-Town America[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 May 23#Small-Town America

Federation of America[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) 16:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking for example of World Wrestling Federation, though not suggesting to retarget there. But are there better targets in that way? Si Trew (talk) 09:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Is there an article that discusses the USA's establishment as a federation - the how/when/who/why/ of the thirteen colonies' decision to become a federal republic? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:15, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Declaration of Independence is a DAB, but one entry there is the United States Declaration of Independence, which has Thirteen Colonies right in the lede. Is that any good? There are many other declarations of independence at that DAB, including one closer literally Solemn Act of the Declaration of Independence of Northern America, between (or rather not between) Mexico and Spain, but the first would seem to be a truth that we would hold to be self-evident. Si Trew (talk) 02:03, 9 May 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.

Hapjungguk[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) 16:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hapjungguk → United States (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] TheChampionMan1234 04:23, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete undocumented redirect with no indication of what it is -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 06:00, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I guess this is a transliteration from Chinese, Korean or some other East Asian language (Google translate recognises it as Indonesian, but does not provide a translation, and is understandably unreliable when just attempting to detect a language from a single word). But all roads lead to Rome: an external search brings up The Free Dictionary and so on, which doesn't mention it, and other sites such as dictionary.com and onelook.com and dbpedia.org, none of which mentions it (the last mirrors content partially from Wikipedia but at least says it does); I presume their Web crawlers see the title on Wikipedia and kinda add it in to their own redirect mechanisms but there is no mention in any of them. Si Trew (talk) 07:22, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment List of country names in various languages (Q–Z) TheChampionMan1234 07:36, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Google Translate changed its mind and said it was Malay; the list that ChampionMan gives says it is Korean; the target ChampionMan gives would seem to be reasonable. ko:아메리카_합중국 exists on Korean Wikipedia, however since this is an English transliteration of the Hangul I am not sure if it belongs in English Wikipedia or not. My guideline is, would someone be likely to search for it this way? The stats suggest not (fewer than 1 hit per day, and that's just this discussion). Hence I call "weak delete", but I'm easily persuaded otherwise. [[Si Trew (talk) 07:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, it's a non-English redirect from a script that is not used in the language that it supposedly originated in... to a target where that language is not a native or prominent language of discourse. Should be deleted like all the other redirects that have been deleted lately of the same type. -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 04:41, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with you, but I can see both sides of both sides. In British English you get equivocation before you get sugar in your tea. I would delete it, weakly, but I don't know why a Hangul writer would come to the English Wikipedia rather than the Korean Wikipedia. Si Trew (talk) 10:48, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per comment above by 65.94. — Scott • talk 10:23, 13 May 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.

Republic of America[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) 16:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
American Eagle and Banana Republic, perhaps? --BDD (talk) 16:26, 13 May 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.

El Primero Pagina[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) 16:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous, it is titled Spanish or Portuguese, but with bad grammar TheChampionMan1234 04:05, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the first page is not the Main Page, it's the portal at www.wikipedia.org ; further, this is not English, and this is not the Spanish/Portuguese Wikipedia either. -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 06:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete also as I think it was Wikid77 pointed out before, the main page is the easiest page to find. While I am not averse to foreign-language links if they are genuinely helpful, this is just stupid. Presumably it would be la primera pagina or el premero pagino, if anything to sort out the gender; but in Portuguese it is Página_principal and in Spanish it is Portada, as any fule kno checking the interwiki links on the left. So this is just silly. Si Trew (talk) 08:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Si Trew.--Lenticel (talk) 08:40, 6 May 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_May_6&oldid=1138579811"