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. I added more explanation of these terms to Fault tolerance#Terminology since the article seemed to need it anyway, and pointed both redirects there. I added merge tags where I thought the merge suggestions below had merit. Further improvements to all these articles are very welcome. -- Beland (talk) 19:32, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The target article discusses graceful degradation, but not failure. Since it's not mentioned there, I recommend deletion. BDD (talk) 20:13, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Fail gracefully) Grammatical variant. Si Trew (talk) 06:51, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget', but not sure whereDABify. We also have fail-safe and graceful exit. While none is perfect, I think the concept is common enough that we could retargetDABify this.
Adding "fail gracefully" to nom. Fault-tolerant computer system, to which both R's redirect, has that term. WP:RFD#KEEP says differing grammatical forms do not form a reason to delete, and taken pedantically that could mean neither should be deleted because the other exists, but it seems better to treat them the same. Si Trew (talk) 06:50, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We are not WP:DICDEF of course, but it seems a reasonably widely used term. With the exceptions of Babbitt (metal) and Bailout, the uses are all for software. (I'm a bit surprised we don't have "Bailout (software)" to mean error handling code, but perhaps that is just my personal jargon.) Si Trew (talk) 05:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
disambig per Si Trew. Something "failing gracefully" is a term I am familiar with in computing, and I've also heard it used in the context of railway signalling to mean a right-side failure (i.e. fail safe) mode that permits degraded working (some trains operating is preferable to none). Thryduulf (talk) 11:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A good point, graceful failure at one level, leads to graceful degradation at another. The two concepts are intertwined. All the best: RichFarmbrough, 12:04, 25 October 2014 (UTC).
Restore original article. Before someone changed this to a redirect (which I disagree describes this term appropriately), I originally wrote this as an article. ~~helix84 13:46, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't think the article should be restored. It's an unsourced stub with some statements factually incorrect. Si Trew (talk) 10:13, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both - bear with me, this is long-winded. I believe that this term is also related to fault testing in materials engineering, though that's not how graceful failure was originally written. As written, it did seem to duplicate fault-tolerant computer system, which itself seems to be a sub-article of fault tolerance. However, thinking about the examples that Simon came up with, every one of these references is a form of fault tolerance in a system. Bailout is fault tolerance in an economic system, Babbitt (metal) is a fault tolerant mechanical system, as is Thry's railway switching example. Some, particularly the ones about computer systems, could be re-piped to fault-tolerant computer system, but for the others, piping to fault tolerance is appropriate. For the computer systems, piping to the computer system article is better, but piping to fault tolerance is not necessarily wrong. So the redirects are fine as they are, though some links might be improved through being re-piped. I also suggest that fault-tolerant computer system, graceful exit and robustness (computer science) should all be merged - they appear to cover the same subject - but this is out of our scope here. There are a lot of other potential merges as well, e.g. elegant degradation, failing badly, interlock (engineering) (merge already proposed with dead man's switch), and probably others. Ivanvector (talk) 20:08, 20 November 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. There's essentially no consensus here, but no one wants these kept as they are, and there's disagreement about where they should point. Any user who thinks these should exist may recreate them pointing to his or her desired target, but prepare to defend your choice at a future RfD. --BDD (talk) 21:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A rather ridiculous redirect. Yes, an example of this dialect, but there's really very little connection between these titles and the target Oiyarbepsy (talk) 14:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
retargetNorf london to North London - it probably shouldn't have been created, but now it does that is the best place for it to point. Thryduulf (talk) 16:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
...but now it does that is the best place for it to point Um, can you elaborate on that? Tandrum (talk) 08:00, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with reasoning, but not concusion. All my family are from Norf London. I am not sure I would agree with it not being created, but in Cockney or as it is called these days Estuary English (totally different things) the "th" would be sounded "f". It may be a bit of a Private Eyeism though? (There was a strip in that called "It's grim up North London"), my subcrition lapsed but by Knife and Packer I think, which was deliberately posh types – presumably gay – who earned far too much money and were constantly doing up their place. I am not sure if that is relevant. Alan Bennett had the same theme thirty years ago about Knocking through i.e. conjoining two properties to make one large one, in Camden (Norf London). So I think this is sort of relevant, although more precision than North London would be better. London south of the Thames was technically Surrey until well into the twentieth century; so what is "North London"? Watford Gap]? Si Trew (talk) 20:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak DeleteMouf. I don't see value in retargetting to mouth (but I am open to persuasion otherwise). Word of Mouf is the only other vaguely realistic target, but I think that is too vague. Thryduulf (talk) 16:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Londoners do know how to spell (except for greengrocers' apostrophes) but we are not a pronunciation guide any more than we are a translation service (which are perhaps the same thing!) rouf I give as a parallel, which should go to four, as it is bookmakers' slang for 4/1 against. I keep meaning to do the article for tic-tac. Si Trew (talk) 20:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Part of the whole reason slang is created and circulated is people want to be under a guise of exclusiveness. In other words, be a douchebag. Wikipedia prides itself on being in the know, so when typing in slang someone thinks no one will know, imagine being displayed the scholarly study on the subculture the word plays in. This user created the redirects because I assumed no one would debate this, but since it is, it should be noted that th-fronting is used in Ebonic culture as well. Thanks Tandrum (talk) 08:00, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree.
We use enough slang or jargon here for example WP:RFD instead of Wikipedia:Redirects for Discussion and that is for brevity, not exclusivity. It's fine as long as everyone knows the same jargon.
This is not slang or jargon, but an approximation of a particular way to pronounce something, in particular Th-fronting. While that, as a linguistic article, is fine, to add these redirects is not fine. It is, essentially, being disrespectful to my accent – which I regard as valid as any other. We don't have Way aye directing to Liverpudlian or Geordie, or indeed anywhere else.
For if not, we add "fink positive" and "fird league" and so on ad infinitum. English is especially divergent in its spoken and written forms compared to most languages. Si Trew (talk) 13:55, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, On the other hand I suppose there is precedent: we do have Fings Ain't Wot They Used T'Be, but that is the official title of a musical comedy largely written by Lionel Bart (and a hit song for south londoner (not north) Max Bygraves in 1960; it was played endlessly when I was growing up). here are the lyrics, and most are "f", but I note one has "th(f)" and Southend is spelled such and not Sarfend, for example. I think the lyrics are transcribed so it's not very WP:RS, I don't have the musical score.
But I don't think Wikipedia is meant to be a comedy. A tragedy sometimes, certainly. Si Trew (talk) 06:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Although I was just thinking, the P. G. Wodehouse "Jeeves" character Gussie Fink-Nottle presumably is some kind of suggestion of "think not at all" (he being good natured but a bit dim), but neither the author not Gussie is remotely "common". Si Trew (talk) 09:42, 23 September 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) 16:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to corecctly spelled forms. It should, arguably be "marf" in the contexts some other commentators have mentioned. But certainly "Blimey what a mouf, what a norf-and-souf" is probably the archetypal usage of this spelling/pronunciation. All the best: RichFarmbrough, 12:09, 25 October 2014 (UTC).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
The 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 turn into disambiguation page. I think I added everything that was mentioned here, plus anything the Wikipedia search engine found for "mangga". I also cleaned up Manga (disambiguation) and cross-linked. Feel free to edit further and discuss on the article talk pages. -- Beland (talk) 01:36, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be Indonesian for "mango", weak retarget to manga as typo - TheChampionMan1234 07:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with you either way. manga as typo was the first thing that came to my mind.you I note we have 漫画, as a DAB which lists two topics: Manhua for Chinese comics and Manga for Japanese comics. That falls under WP:TWODABS I think, but that's another can of worms. I don't know about you, but I always felt that Rs and DABs are kinda siamese twins so I don't mind discussing them here. Si Trew (talk) 08:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. What a tangled web we unweave. We have also Mangga language and Buang language and Buang languages. The first is a redirect to Mangga Buang language, the others redirect to South Huon Gulf languages (where Mangga Buang language is linked). I would be inclined at first to reverse the redirect at Mangga language as the shorter title, as there don't seem to be any other Mangga language, but I note the official ISO name is "Mangga Buang Language" (code MMO). an evangelical bible study site here kinda implies that "Buang" is a geographical, rather than linguistic, adjective ("British English" springs to mind as a parallel) – but I'm not entirely convinced of that. We don't have plain Buang, for example.
To complicate things, we also have Manga language, which is a DAB with two entries Mangga Buang language and Manga language (Tibeto-Burman) which is of course not closely related. But the existence of the DAB surprised me, as I was expecting it to be something about the graphical and narrative "language" of Manga comics, although I couldn't think of a good word for that - "Style" I suppose I mean, but a bit more than that: the readers expect certain conventions to be held, just as they do with a whodunnit.
Most of these language articles are stubs with very little real useful info.
Gosh, how dare you be bold? I guess you get away with it because you are an admin. It is just one piece of hay we have found in an enormous stack of needles, though. Si Trew (talk) 15:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)Struck I meant it jokingly but it might seem otherwise. SiTrew.[reply]
Weak retarget per nom, or delete. Disambiguation would not be a good option, as all those candidates mentioned are partial title matches. --BDD (talk) 15:14, 21 October 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) 15:23, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete and Comment - mangga is also the spelling for "mango" in the Carolinian and Chamorro languages, spoken in the Northern Mariana Islands and Guam. This should probably be deleted, considering the guidance at WP:R#DELETE that "redirects from a foreign language title to a page whose subject is unrelated to that language (or a culture that speaks that language) should generally not be created". - tucoxn\talk 23:27, 8 November 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.
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) 21:04, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just fixed a whole bunch of redirects that were redirected to Fujiwara no Kintō a few months before a better target article was created. But I noticed these three odd ones in the process. The correct romanized spelling of the Japanese name is "Sanjūrokkasen" (two ks, one s, no b). One most QWERTY keyboards, "Sanjubrokkasen" is a pretty unlikely misprint. "Sanjū rokkasen" is an acceptable spelling, but does anyone aim for the space bar and hit "b" by mistake? "Sanjurokassen" is a bit more likely, but a quick Googling indicated that it is actually the name of an almost-unrelated series of images whose name translates to "Thirty-six Honourable Battles". The name of that series is probably a pun on the currently-redirected article, but I guess until the Thirty-six Honourable Battles gets its own article I guess the current redirect status is best for a pretty likely misspelling of a foreign name. On the other hand "Immortals of poetry japanese" is ambiguous, since we also have an article on the "Six Immortals of Poetry". I'm pretty sure the word "japanese" at the end makes this a pretty useless redirect either way, though. I'm not sure what to make of these, but at the moment I would say delete "Sanjubrokkasen" and "Immortals of poetry japanese", but keep "Sanjurokassen" for the time being. What does everyone else think? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely delete the one with the "b". Being very lenient, none of the four surrounding letters are even close to "b" on Qwerty. No comment on the 1k, 2s form, especially with the lack of an article on those battles. For the last one, I am thinking of creating a dab on Immortals of poetry between 6IoP and 36IoP (and maybe also include Li Bai who is named 詩仙/poem-immortal in Chinese literature) and then retarget to that? 野狼院ひさしHisashiYarouin 13:01, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per proposer. @Hisashiyarouin:, can you add your thoughts to the RfD today (17th) on mangga? Si Trew (talk) 09:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I probably hould have done this more justice. The "-kk-" is not romaji is it (one K is enough), although I note Nikkei and Nikkai have it. I agree the one ending "japanese" without initial cap seems pointless (English caps language names; I know many other languages that don't, I would think it natural an English speaker to type in the cap, unless they are REALLY lazy). The others I have no opinion on –I don't know who the thirty-six immortals are, which is revealing my ignorance even more than usual. Si Trew (talk) 03:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
KeepSanjurokassen because missing a "k" is a very plausible misspelling. The paintings appear to be called "Meiyo sanjurokassen" not just "sanjurokassen" so that's a partial title match and doesn't need attention, but in any case a hatnote to Utagawa Kuniyoshi would be sufficient. Siuenti (talk) 21:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sanjurokassen is both missing a "k" and includes an extra "s". I'm inclined to agree that it's still a possible misspelling. I'm worried that hatnoting the article when there are apparently so few sources discussing the Honourable Battles would violate WP:WEIGHT, though. Do you think we should just leave it until someone(theoretically?) creates the article? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:50, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps until it gets discussed somewhere in Wikipedia. Siuenti (talk) 21:06, 26 September 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) 14:10, 21 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.
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) 21:06, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's no two pages named Apep. Disambig not necessary. Redirects to differently named disambig. uKER (talk) 12:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Apophis (a DAB page), and add phrase "or Apep" to the lede there.
I'm not sure what's gone on here Apophis (disambiguation) is an R to DAB at Apophis; the first is currently marked as CSD G6 (Housekeeping) as holding up a page from the second. Which it isn't, since it's perfectly standard for a DAB page not to need "(disambiguation)" but to have an R of that form. So, Apep (disambiguation) is an R to Apophis, but the first two entries there are to Apep, an ancient Egyptian and presumably WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and Apepi (pharaoh). (I don't accept that "Apep" and "Apepi" are different names.) My suggested retarget ties it all together more symetrically. Si Trew (talk) 13:05, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I support deletion, Apophis is the only thing listed in Apophis (disambiguation) that may also be called Apep; the others, such as 99942 Apophis are all called "Apophis" but not "Apep". --dab(𒁳) 13:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(I thought I added a comment here but it seems to have got lost.) The articles indicate that "Apep", "Apepi" (R to Apophis) and "Apophis" are the same name (in Egyptian or Greek). Nothing is listed at Apophis (disambiguation); that is an R to the DAB at Apophis. The article at 'Apepi (note leading apostrophe) also says there is speculation from inscriptions on coinage that he was the "King's son Apophis". I don't see how any of this can be resolved until the CSD at Apophis (disambiguation) is resolved. There is some discussion of this naming difficulty at Talk:Apepi (pharaoh). Si Trew (talk) 14:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since this has devolved into a discussion about the fate of maybe 5 pages, my suggestion is: G6 delete Apophis (disambiguation), move Apophis there, and retarget Apepi and Apep to the disambig page. Then, maybe Apophis should be recreated as a redirect to the disambig, and Apep (disambiguation) could be deleted (which I prefer) or retargeted to Apophis (disambiguation). --uKER (talk) 18:11, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Gnoming, I've restructured the DAB page at Apophis a bit to try to untangle this, adding a couple of entries, an etymology and a link to Wiktionary, which I think clarifies the Apophis/Apep duality.
I've added the (R to) DAB page Apep (disambiguation) to the hatnotes at Apep and 'Apepi: it seems clearer to readers to go to the DAB via Apep rather than Apophis, and also helps if we decided to split the Apophis DAB page in two (Apep/Apophis) – but I don't suggest doing so.
I'm not trying to pre-empt discussion here; I hope these are uncontroversial (esecially because the Apep I go via the R at Apep (disambiguation). Si Trew (talk) 08:33, 3 November 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.
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) 17:10, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Implausible search term. Launchballer 12:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Move to London Buses route 612. London Buses route 685 already has its own. However this and many many others all redirect back to List of bus routes in London, where only those routes with a real article seem to be linked. That's not bad since at least they link the approximate route, I suppose. The navbox at {{London bus routes}} uses and I am going to change it to be London Buses route 612, not to pre-empt the result of this discussion but so we can see where it is really used in articles outside the navbox. Si Trew (talk) 14:58, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The only thing I could find that actually used it was Wallington,_London#Bus, where it was piped to "612" anyway. I can't find from the history why this was combined, most edits at the template have no ec. Si Trew (talk) 15:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I went WP:BOLD and moved it, leaving behind this redirect. I can't see this contravenes any even unwritten rules, since I had changed the pages that referred to it (which both piped to 612 anyway) so the only other option really was to create a new redirect at 612, and if we did that we'd lose the history (or have to do a move over redirect). So really it was a fait accompli from the moment I checked WhatLinksHere, so it might as well be done now. Si Trew (talk) 16:58, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete the L and G are quite far on a keyboard so I don't see why a person would misspell the word in this manor.--69.157.253.160 (talk) 21:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I guess when you submitted this you got an ec and it went into the wrong section (immediately below)... I've copied it there, hope that's OK. Si Trew (talk) 05:34, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, that was where it was meant to go.--69.157.253.160 (talk) 02:01, 23 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.
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 per WP:CSD#G7 (author request; see comments at the end of the discussion). Thryduulf (talk) 11:46, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unlikely typo, created during a double page move. Fram (talk) 10:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Really don't care - policy says this should be kept since it is four years old. However it really doesn't matter. If you understood what was involved you would not nominate this for deletion, since nothing is gained by deleting it. Of course since you claim to be a programmer one would expect that you do actually understand that. If you didn't you could have read the explanations I have provided previously. Of course there is the possibility that you are not RfDing this because it is harmful, but for other reasons. If so, you should find a new hobby. All the best: RichFarmbrough, 15:00, 21 October 2014 (UTC).
Where have I ever claimed to be a programmer? Fram (talk) 17:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and which policy says that a four year old redirect should be kept? It shouldn't be speedy deleted, that's why I nominated it for discussion instead. But no policy I'm aware of states that old redirects should be kept. Fram (talk) 17:33, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Rich Farmbrough: If there's something we should know about a redirect that would stop someone from nominating it, you put a note on its talk page, because that's what talk pages are for. A good example, Wikipedia talk:8 which tells us exactly why that redirect exists, and notice how it has never been nominated for deletion. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 18:11, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nonsensical, unless I hear a good reason to keep it. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 18:11, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the L and G are quite far on a keyboard so I don't see why a person would misspell the word in this manor.--69.157.253.160 (talk) 21:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All the indications are this was a typo made when moving the page (even unlikely ones happen sometimes!) that was immediately corrected. I would have no qaulms about speedying this as G6 (created in error). That said, Rich is right that we shouldn't be wasting time discussing harmless redirects like this - it is harmless and we gain nothing by deleting them. However, as this is clearly an error we lose nothing either, so as we're here... Thryduulf (talk) 11:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
CommentUser:Rich Farmbrough has blanked the redirect and nominated in under WP:G7, which I reverted because there was a RFD discussion concerning the redirect; since I'm not sure about the policy for blanked redirects during RFD, I'll leave this comment here. If G7 was fine, feel free to revert my actions. KJ Discuss? 04:01, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Kkj11210 Thank you. It is not uncommon for redirects to be speedied during an RfD, I certainly have never seen an objection to a valid G7. Since collegial working is dear to my heart, I was happy to G7 this to reduce workload, despite the dubious nature of the nomination (as indeed I often have when things have been brought to my page in a collegial manner). Rather than re-revert I will simply request that the redirect (of which I am the only substantial author) be speedied G7, and leave it to others to add the necessary template, should they be prepared to do so. All the best: RichFarmbrough, 10:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC).
Nominating for speedy deletion as G7 during an RfD discussion is generally fine if the CSD criterion applies (it does here) and nobody in the discussion has recommended a different course of action, but it's best to add the template to the redirect page as well as rather than instead of the RfD tag. You should also mention in the discussion that you have nominated it. In all cases, just !voting "speedy delete" in the discussion is acceptable. A passing admin (e.g. me) will speedy delete it without the template if they think speedy deletion is appropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 11:46, 25 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.
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 disambiguate. Most editors advocated either disambiguating or redirecting. There wasn't a universal agreement as to where it should go, so I've created a disambiguation page. I also marked that page as {{dabconcept}}, as it appears that the phrase itself is a candidate for an article. Non admin close, feel free to revert if I've screwed it up. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 17:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Global jihad (disambiguation). When this redirect was first created by User:OrangesRyellow there is a an edit summary "redirect. this topic probably needs it's own comprehensive article, there is also a section in the Abdullah Yusuf Azzam article, but this seems to be the most appropriate". While is could become its own article, the current redirect to al-Qaeda is no longer appropriate. The concept of global jihad is part of the theology of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (no longer associated with al-Qaeda) and other groups. Disambiguation to the various uses of the term is preferred. ~Technophant (talk) 07:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Why retarget it to a non-existent DAB page? Just be WP:BOLD and overwrite the page with what you want at the DAB. You say "[DAB of] the term is preferred" – by whom? If you, just do it. I note Global jihaddoesdid not exist. Si Trew (talk) 08:35, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1, I wanted to get consensus first and 2, I'm lazy.~Technophant (talk) 17:39, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To be technical, Technophant, what you're proposing is to disambiguate the term, not retarget it. Given WP:NCCAPS, what you'd want would be a disambiguation page at Global jihad, with this capitalization variant and Global jihad (disambiguation) redirecting there. I wonder if a WP:CONCEPTDAB article is possible, though. I have my own suggestion, though. See below. --BDD (talk) 17:56, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Jihadism, which already includes this term bolded in the lede. These appear to be mostly, if not entirely, overlapping concepts. --BDD (talk) 17:56, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support retarget to Jihadism as proposed by BDD. This seems like the simplest solution. Also RD Global jihad there ( Done).~Technophant (talk) 23:49, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment at Jihadism it says that "the term is clumsy and controversial." I agree. That's why I started this RfD. It's hard to figure out how to handle this term. Another thing, only one article links to "Global Jihad", South Thailand insurgency, and the way it does it is by using [[Global Jihad|foreign Islamic]].~Technophant (talk) 00:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I can see that. I had thought to suggest just to R it to jihad, since I thought jihad is by implication global (in the same sense that, e.g., The gospel#Christian mission is, though that section uses the word "worldwide", and even then in [square brackets] as an insertion.)
A few more suggestions for DAB:
Jihadism#History, says 'when the ultimate aim of spreading Islam worldwide under a restored Caliphate, it is often called "Global Jihadism".' (Global Jihadism and Global jihadism currently redlinks.)
I'm Adding Global jihad to this discussion, with much doubt. WP:NCCAPS specifically allows article titles to differ only by caps, but says that such articles should be hatnoted: which is not possible (well, not useful) for R's. Their targets should be hatnoted, but we can't do that until we get consensus on which targets they are. Creating Global jihad was premature. Si Trew (talk) 06:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC) DoneSi Trew (talk) 06:24, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe that there may be an organisation called "Global Jihad". All the best: RichFarmbrough, 10:40, 25 October 2014 (UTC).
@Rich Farmbrough: There is certainly a website globaljihad.net, but the website is down at the moment and from what I can see on the Google Cache it isn't clear whether it is an organisation, some organisation's campaign or something else. I don't have time to research further atm, but it is research that needs doing. Thryduulf (talk) 11:53, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thryduulf - the website appears to be mainly an aggregator of news stories about global jihad, but (https://web.archive.org/web/20100612080850/http://global jihad.net/view_page.asp?id=1420 per this archived page - with the space in the url removed ) it does not seem to be a jihadist site itself.
I have made a preliminary search for Global Jihad, with only one or two at best ambiguous hits (a reference to "global jihad cells", for example, without caps). Given that terrorist groups are often ephemeral to the point of only being documented as a single press release (and this applies to almost all radical groupings, certainly in recent history, which tend to splinter, reform and change their names with alarming frequency) I would be inclined not to worry about my previous point, until and unless such an organisation turns up, when things can be easily changed. All the best: RichFarmbrough, 12:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC).
Comment I'm not sure if it is a more appropriate target, but Offensive jihad also exists. All the best: RichFarmbrough, 12:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC).
Interesting page, though I think either offensive or defensive jihad could be global in scope. --BDD (talk) 14:34, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Correct me but I do not see a reason for keeping this redirect. Anyone searching for the term from outside of Wikipedia will be connect to relevant articles that contain the term. Why do we need a redirect on this term? If need be editors can more transparently use piping. Gregkaye✍♪ 13:40, 2 December 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.
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) 15:50, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is based on a joke from Futurama, the episode The Deep South. Obviously this shouldn't target lion, but I'm not sure it should target the Futurama episode either, and it maybe should just be deleted. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A Landseer lion in Trafalgar Square, LondonDelete. I would say R it to The Deep South (Futurama), but it's not mentioned there. I wondered whether Landseer lion was possible as misheard, but that does not exist. From what I gather from the script it is just a throwaway line and not encylopaedic even at a plot article, QED by its absence. (Presumably anyway even in-universe they should be called "land lions", as in our universe we call e.g. land crabs.) Si Trew (talk) 05:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's just a joke. --Lenticel(talk) 01:12, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons given by Si Trew. The comment, that it is in all caps is not necessarily critically important, as those alts can easily be made if needed. It is also easy to move a page. As for, nonce words, they can be highly notable vis-à-vis Truthiness. Many jokes are in need of encyclopedia articles (see also:The Aristocrats). However, this joke is not one... —Gaffταλκ 05:42, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment perhaps this is an exemplar of a linguistic trope, the other example that springs to mind is Richard Herring's wonderful "pomme de terre de ciel". All the best: RichFarmbrough, 10:21, 25 October 2014 (UTC).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Thank you. It is not uncommon for redirects to be speedied during an RfD, I certainly have never seen an objection to a valid G7. Since collegial working is dear to my heart, I was happy to G7 this to reduce workload, despite the dubious nature of the nomination (as indeed I often have when things have been brought to my page in a collegial manner). Rather than re-revert I will simply request that the redirect (of which I am the only substantial author) be speedied G7, and leave it to others to add the necessary template, should they be prepared to do so. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 10:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC).
Done).~Technophant (talk) 23:49, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
