Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 September 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 24[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 24, 2014.

2016 Colorado Rockies season[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 G7 deletion. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 01:37, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Way too early to even have a re-direct for a season that doesnt start for 2 years. Spanneraol (talk) 22:36, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, if you want it to be deleted or something it isn't a big deal. Brobro264 (talk) 01:32, 25 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.

York County ?Court House[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) 15:56, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion, improbable named redirect from page move. Bamyers99 (talk) 19:40, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Highly improbably misnomer and spelling. Steel1943 (talk) 01:05, 26 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.

Isil[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. This was a very tough call. Numerically, the discussion was slightly in favor of the proposal. And there's no doubt, as Yaksar noted at the bottom, that the Islamic State is a more popular topic than Tolkien's moon, especially lately. My own inclination would be to support the proposal as well, but I think those opposed have a very strong argument that the Islamic State is very unlikely to be referred to as "Isil" (with that capitalization), especially after the name change. After a lively discussion with good arguments on both sides, I have to call this no consensus. --BDD (talk) 13:56, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Update: As I better understand the situation, the last outcome supported by consensus involved Isil pointing to ISIL (disambiguation)—see Talk:ISIL (disambiguation)#Requested move. Since I found no consensus here, it will be that outcome that I'll revert to. --BDD (talk) 17:40, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Update 2: It has come to my attention that in British English, searching for acronyms with only the first letter capitalized (e.g., Nasa, Isil) is a more common practice. It may make sense to retarget at some point to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, where the all-caps variant already redirects. --BDD (talk) 15:45, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like this redirect to be sent to ISIL (disambiguation), since I expect most people who type "isil" into the search bar and hit enter are thinking of ISIL. Some people won't realize that the capitalization is the issue (as I didn't) and this causes needless frustration. Sammy1339 (talk) 18:46, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support redirecting to disambiguation - logical. While there is a potential debate that the terrorist group may not be the primary topic for the term, there's very little doubt that the LOTR term is not the primary.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose If the primary topic is the terrorist jihadi group, why not redirect straight there? In any case, since it is lowercase it is not an acronym, so I oppose this request. BethNaught (talk) 18:50, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • While there is a potential debate that the terrorist group may not be the primary topic for the term, there's very little debate that the LOTR term is not the primary.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:54, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose retarget away from Sun and Moon (Middle-earth)#Moon - Isil =/= ISIL. There is only one page at ISIL (disambiguation) that is relevant to the word Isil: the Tolkien Moon. The rest are acronyms that are always capitalized, which isn't the case with Isil, which is visibly not an acronym. It is thus logical to to target the redirect to the only really applicable target, with the in-section hatnote to the DAB, just in case. See also my reply to search indexing concerns on the nominator's talk page. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:04, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to disambiguation Capitals are just about never appropriate as disambiguation, and case-sensitive page titles was one of our biggest mistakes. Also, stop saying support and oppose, it doesn't clearly state what you want. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 20:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It does state what I want, it means I oppose the nominated retargeting. BethNaught (talk) 20:34, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, now that's clear, but before I thought you might mean that you oppose the redirect, instead of opposing the proposed change. See the problem? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 19:59, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Primary target for this redirect is it's present target, which has primary long-term significance and a hatnote to the acronym's disambiguation page. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 16:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to dispute the notion that the group ISIL has less long-term significance than the Elvish word for "moon" which was not even mentioned in the Lord of the Rings books, and does not even have its own article. And although it may not be relevant, that hatnote was only added after this discussion started. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your first point may or may not be true; however, I did not anywhere suggest nor advance that notion. Your second point is false as shown by this edit, which was made on 22 Sept. This proposal began on 24 Sept. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 18:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Oppose per WP:DIFFCAPS. All other entries on the disambiguation page are represented in all caps, making its current target the inherent primary topic for its capitalization. Steel1943 (talk) 16:38, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to point out that WP:DIFFCAPS has an exception for exactly this situation. To quote:

    "Certain applications of this policy are often heavily debated; in certain instances, this form of disambiguation may not be sufficient if one article is far more likely a primary topic than the other. For instance, an album entitled JESUS would probably have its article located at JESUS (album), with JESUS continuing to be a redirect to Jesus. If the album or other possible uses were deemed by editors to be reasonably likely search results for "JESUS", consensus among editors would determine whether or not JESUS would be the location for the album article, a redirect to Jesus, a disambiguation page, or a redirect to the existing disambiguation page Jesus (disambiguation)."

    In this case, the chance that someone who types in "isil" has in mind the Elvish word for the moon in the Silmarillion is miniscule. According to stats.grok.se, Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant has gotten 2,101,120 hits so far this month at the time of this writing, while Sun_and_Moon_(Middle-earth) has gotten 791. In March 2013, the month before the jihadist group changed its name to ISIL, "isil" got just 64 hits, an average of 2 per day, and this includes hits for the three other acronyms since the tracker is not case sensitive. The figure is up to 35,197 hits for "isil" so far this month. Furthermore, since the redirect in question was created a few days ago, the number of hits on the Tolkien sun and moon article surged from about 20 per day, which was the steady rate for months, to over 80 per day, suggesting that about 3/4 of people who visited that article were looking for ISIL. Other than spreading Tolkien awareness I don't see any good reason to continue sending people there. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:29, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sammy1339: The primary premise of WP:DIFFCAPS is to allow someone searching a term to be allowed to redirect/arrive at a term/article that matches the capitalization they type. Just like the text you provided states, there are some exceptions, and I strongly don't believe that this is one of them. In this case, it would be best to give the reader the option to arrive the topic that matches the capitalization they type than not. With that being said, it would be best to leave the nominated redirect targeting what it is; the fact that Isil (disambiguation) targets the disambiguation page is sufficient enough. Steel1943 (talk) 18:34, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Steel1943: If the word/acronym "isil", which had 64 hits in March 2013 before the jihadist group was named ISIL and 34,197 hits this month already, an increase of more than 534 times, is not an example of this, then what is? Can you provide an example of when this exception ought to apply? --Sammy1339 (talk) 18:58, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sammy1339: WP:DIFFCAPS and page views are two different points/arguments. Steel1943 (talk) 19:56, 25 September 2014 (UTC) After reviewing WP:DIFFCAPS, it seems like it may have an impact via page views. However, I still believe that the lowercase-version exclusively refers to its current target. Steel1943 (talk) 01:09, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Steel1943: By the criteria in WP:PRIMARYTOPIC it seems implausible that ISIL is not the primary topic for "isil." It is both "highly likely ... to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term" (as the hit counter shows) and has "substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term." Again I have to ask you, or anyone else, to provide an example of an exception along the lines of the section of WP:DIFFCAPS quoted above that is better than this one. --Sammy1339 (talk) 20:08, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now, Sammy, let me see if I have this straight – you advocate that any and every time a newsworthy group gives itself a name that results in an acronym or initialism that is already focused upon something else, we should retarget all such redirects away from their primary targets and to those groups? just because the page views increase? Why isn't it sufficient in those cases to make a hatnote? Isn't that one main reason for the existence of hatnotes? – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 01:43, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that is what anyone is saying -- rather, given that the issues currently concerning ISIL are arguably the number one news story worldwide, and that many users will simply type a term in Wikipedia search without using capitals, it seems likely that more than a slim majority of editors, if even that, are typing isil expecting the current term it directs to. This isn't the case with a terror group like The Beatles (terrorist cell) -- even though they're in the news the band remains the intended destination of most readers using the term.--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And if or when, at some future point in time, The Beatles (terrorist cell) really gets going and becomes monumentally newsworthy, what then? – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 02:06, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, I think it would be so so so unlikely, but if we did somehow reach the point where the majority of editors using the term "the beatles" were referring to the terrorist group we would have to make it a disambiguation page. This does happen sometimes, such as when a figure like Paul Ryan becomes the clear primary topic over subjects deemed previously just as or more likely search targets.--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:35, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Paine Ellsworth:Yes, I agree with Yaksar that we ought to consider what a user likely wants to see. In response to your comment that the isil redirect was "already focused upon something else," it was actually changed to the current target on 22 September in this edit whereupon the hits for the Sun and Moon in Middle Earth immediately spiked up:[1]. Furthermore that term is only one of many Tolkien terms for the moon, and it and three "ISIL" acronyms were all together getting 2 hits per day prior to ISIL's name change. So even though the Elvish word did exist before the jihadist group, the situation is less like The Beatles being the target of a "beatles" redirect in preference to The Beatles (terrorist cell), and more like the opposite of that. --Sammy1339 (talk) 04:28, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wow, had no idea about that. In that case the article should remain as it was created a few days ago -- there was not a consensus to move it to the LOTR topic, and the user who made the move should have not kept reverting but should have discussed the proposal--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:02, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, that does not change a thing. You said that users (readers) would type in "isil" in lowercase looking for the uppercase acronym, and that it is "frustrating". I feel that most users would not do that. Most users (obviously not "all" users if we judge by the page-view counts) most users will type in the uppercase "ISIL" and be taken right to "Islamic State". The rest, those relatively few who type in "isil" are taken to a hatnote that leads them to their destination. Either way, someone who looks for the Islamic State finds it. The lowercase "isil" is not an acronym any more than "bo" are Barack Obama's initials, nor "nato" nor "nasa", nor "unicef". Those lazy bones and forgetful users who type in the lowercase do get to where they are going, and I see no frustration in it. The highest and best use of "Isil" is the name for the Moon in the Tolkien artificial language. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 07:02, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly Paine Ellsworth, a section hatnote or dab page is similarly frustrating. This request is flawed for the readers it seeks to help, as it fixed nothing, and only adds inconvenience to the tiny few (and for the long-term) that want the lowercase primary topic. WP:RECENTISM, and not even useful! Widefox; talk 13:31, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note -- Correct me if I'm wrong, but the edit history of this redirect seems to show that 2 days ago it was redirected to its current location. This redirect was reverted, but the revert was undone saying to take it to AfD. There was a bit of a back and forth until this AfD was opened. However, according to the principles of WP:BRD, when the move was first reverted the user who made the initial change should have been the one to begin a discussion, not just revert back. If we can't come to a consensus here, confusingly enough, the page should therefore be restored to its previous consensus, to the disambiguation page.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really am confused somewhat by the articles' histories though. The moves seem to make it much harder to grasp when what directed to where. Regardless, considering the page in question just had a separate move discussion that found a consensus, I've notified the participants of that discussion to weigh in here if they'd like.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I for one cannot deny that you are correct in essence, if not in your details. While it was on 22 Sept. (four days ago) that the recently moved page was initially retargeted to its present target, and while the editor suggested to discuss it here at RfD (not AfD), the usual course is to return the page to status quo (imo in this instance to the edit of 16 Sept. when the page was moved). And yet, there are probably editors who might see the retargeting to its present focus on 22 Sept. as the true "status quo", because it is a logical edit and so close in time to the move edit. In any case, it is what it is, and Sammy chose to open a proposal here at RfD. As for your invitation, the more the merrier! – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 08:34, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or, alternatively, "too many cooks spoil the soup". In which case I've ruined my favorite type of dish. I hope it was a bisque.--Yaksar (let's chat) 08:36, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support any connection between Isil and Isil (disambiguation) although my suggestion is to move Isil (disambiguation) to Isil. Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:24, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another note There have been claims that users looking for ISIL would not use Isil as a search term. If this was the case, however, one would expect little change in the traffic states of the disambiguation page, since users searching for the topic experiencing a high amount of news coverage would know to type ISIL, a term which redirects directly to the terrorist group since September 14th. The actual results, however, show that the disambiguation page received less than half a view average per day last month, and early in the month of september actually received no views at all. Once the page Isil lead to a redirect to the disambiguation page, and not until that point, the views bumped up dramatically, going from less than 1 per day to over 300. Now there are a few possibilities here. These results must be coming from somewhere -- it's not ISIL, since that has directed to the terrorist group since the 14th. The issue is that these views are clearly not going to Sun and Moon (Middle-earth), which from the 14th to 22nd did not have a single view count above 33. The other abbreviated options on the page have gotten views, but none have experienced a spike that would explain the traffic bump in question (and even if they had that would be further evidence that users are looking for more than just the LOTR article. It's safe to call this bump minor in the context of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant article, which has received over 2 million views just this month -- it's not even in the thousands. But, for determining the intentions of readers searching the term "isis", it does provide very strong evidence that less than a majority, let alone the overwhelming majority we require for a primary topic, is intending to reach the Moon page.--Yaksar (let's chat) 08:36, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We (currently) have primary topics for both "ISIL" and for "Isil" both set correctly per WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT (both redirecting to their articles). I agree with Bkonrad's move of the dab page from Isil to ISIL (disambiguation) (despite the edit summary not being exactly right about all items are acronyms). At that point Isil redirected to the dab page (per normal page move). Since then Salvidrim! changed Isil to redirect to the "Isil" primary topic, which although logical, may be controvercial given DIFFCAPS, and the (current) usage stats of ISIL vs Isil. As I'm not convinced of the long-term significance of the term "ISIL" per PRIMARYTOPIC / RECENTISM (vs "Isil") I'm willing to let the few readers wanting "ISIL" but typing "isil" to use the section hatnote rather than a dab page. Not a big difference. I would be interested in Bkonrad's, JHunterJ's and other dab project members views. We certainly shouldn't allow RECENTISM with this article to end up with pairs of lower and uppercase primary topic redirects as the organisation changes names frequently, and the AfD for the redirect from their current name "Islamic State" didn't even result in a redirect to the article, which for me is the bigger issue. Oiyarbepsy and others, the difference in capitalisation is used to distinguish all the time. Widefox; talk 10:07, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It should be noted in addition to what has already been said, that a), ISIL **the newsworthy** no longer exists, because the Islamic State has discarded the name that is the expansion of that acronym (so will it last much longer as a search term?) and b), in previous years it was the Ayatola Khomeini (now all but forgotten), at present it is the Islamic State, and in years to come when ISIL is all but forgotten, it will be something else, perhaps The Beatles, or with good fortune and intent perhaps someday, peace all over will be the big news story. Point is, solid and worthy subjects of redirects ought to be able to weather these news spikes and not be altered on such whims. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 09:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with your comments, we're getting significant numbers of interest in disambiguation resulting from their names, with reluctance to accept that their latest name (for now) is "Islamic State". My WP:CRYSTAL says it will eventually settle down to the something like Red Army Faction in RAF (disambiguation), given WP:10 year test. Widefox; talk 10:23, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support redirecting to the disambiguation page. A reader who types in "Isil" is much more likely to be looking for the Islamic State than an Elvish word for the moon. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:07, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above and below - this proposal doesn't change a thing for the issue you're concerned about - the reader has a dab instead of a section hatnote. Still one click. The other readers are inconvenienced. Widefox; talk 15:37, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment DIFFCAPS actually says that consensus decides in such cases, Sammy1339. See my comment above about how, as proposed, this request has pain but no gain. Note that during this RfD, ALL readers using "isil" (ISIL wishers or otherwise) are further inconvenienced with an additional link and message. Can we close ASAP or remove that promptly please. Widefox; talk 13:45, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the ISIL (disambiguation) per all. There's no articles that link from "Isil" to the Sun and Moon (Middle-earth) . Almost all hits are on ISIL acronyms with 99.6% going to the ISIL (Islamic State). The small spike (20 to 80) in the current redirect doesn't support that a majority of people are finding ISIL (Islamic State) through searching this way. User:Paine Ellsworth ISIL has become the primary acronym used for the Islamic State internationally and is gaining popularity, not going away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Technophant (talk • contribs) 23:13, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(aside: Do you actually have a source to backup your "ISIL" acronym gaining popularity claim? BBC uses "IS" and UK newspapers I see around stopped using ISIL, and use their current name "IS" / "Islamic State".) Sure, for right now usage of ISIL vs other meanings is clear-cut. We're not a newspaper though (see 10 year test, and RECENT). PRIMARYTOPIC has more than just usage: longevity. Also "isil" being spelling error / case mismatch "ISIL". Redirecting to the dab or section hatnote is similar - this doesn't fix anything, at the very minor inconvenienced "isil" readers. Ill thought out RfD. Widefox; talk 15:37, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment when "isil" is typed into the search box, autocomplete comes up with "ISIL" as the first result. This may explain why there's so few hits for "Isil". Also, they way Isil is coming up it displays the notification for this discussion without redirecting. I'm not sure if that's the intended behavior. Perhaps that's the best way for this discussion to get a the widest audience. ~Technophant (talk) 23:28, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Technophant: Editors arriving at the discussion notice when looking up Isil is intentional; that's how the WP:RFD process works: the link to this discussion is included in that notification. Steel1943 (talk) 00:34, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support redirecting to disambiguation I'm afraid I do have to agree with Sammy when it comes to this, common sense has to prevail here. If someone is typing in "isil" they are most likely looking for the "Islamic State" group, as can be seen by the boost in page views when this groups renamed itself. I have not yet seen a shred of evidence to support the claim that people typing in "isil" instead of "ISIL" are an "insignificant minority" as has been claimed above. "ISIL" has a much clearer meaning from our perspective and is easier for us to deal with, and yes people really should be typing that in to any search bar if they are looking for "Islamic State". However, people are inherently lazy and unaware of such complexities in the system, and expect to be taken to the place desired (Never underestimate the laziness of a layman). It shows strength in a system if it is able to handle these cases and feed back to the user with the most appropriate response. In this case, sorry to say, it would have to be the disambiguation page, which would then forward people on to the desired pages. Most of which it seems will end up going to the "Islamic State" article. Wiz9999 (talk) 19:01, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Common sense" – It is common sense for Wikipedia to alter a redirect every time there is a newsworthy acronym to which to change the target? Common sense would be to place a hatnote under the target, whether an article or a section of an article, and that is what has been done. That should suffice – that really should suffice. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 03:55, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, but I have to disagree. I feel, for this case, it does make more sense to have disambiguation than a hatnote. Also, I am not trying to propose that this must then be applied to every other case, in those situations decisions will be made on a case by case basis, as it has been for here. We are not setting any precedents, we are just trying to decide how best to handle this very individual situation. Wiz9999 (talk) 17:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update One of the benefits of the redirect page now not directly sending readers to the sun and moon page is that we have an easier time looking at page view stats. This month, the Isil redirect page was viewed almost 15,000 times so far. How many of these readers went on to the Lord of the Rings article? 557. If it was unclear before that readers were not looking for the sun and moon article before, it is super super clear now.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:07, 20 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.

-ess[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 ESS. --BDD (talk) 14:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTDIC - TheChampionMan1234 08:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I noted elsewehere, discussing diminutives, we do have -ette; but not many other similar suffixes (I think it was something pointing at Russian name that I was grumbling about). -er is DAB with top entry agent noun; -or redirects to agent noun, as does agentive suffix (which is mentioned there, a self-ref). -trix, -trice do not exist. I imagine dictionaries vary whether "-ess" is a diminutive. Si Trew (talk) 14:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not only are we not a dictionary, the target for this is completely irrelevant to the to the entry, which should target to an article about the grammatical form. There is very little gender in the English language, and I doubt there is any article that adequately discusses this suffix that is gradually disappearing from the language anyway. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 14:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • That it is gradually disappearing from the language (a citation is needed for this in articles that discuss gender in English btw) is not relevant to its encyclopaedicness per WP:NTEMP. Thryduulf (talk) 16:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • The suffixes declining use is not really relevant to my opinion anyway - just an aside. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 20:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • soft redirect to wiktionary wikt:-ess (1st preference) or disambgiuate (2nd preference). It strikes me that this is the sort of thing that someone will look up in an encyclopaedia, especially as it is listed (but not linked) at suffix (stats.grok.se is not working at the time of writing, so I can't check) but we don't have an article to point them at. We do have Gender neutrality in English, Gender in English and Gender-specific job title which are in the relevant topic area but don't mention "-ess" and would not make good targets for a redirect. We also have several articles on gendered pronouns, which are tangentially relevant but would make even less good targets, and various linguistics articles that are related but getting increasingly abstract. I wouldn't object to a disambiguation page, with the Witkionary link being the most prominent, but I think I prefer a straight soft redirect. I can conceive that an encylopaedia article may be written that covers this, but that would most likely be something like Gendered suffixes in English rather than specifically about this suffix so I don't think this is a case for WP:RED. Thryduulf (talk) 16:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But there is no gender in English. These words are sex-specific. Unfortunately "gender" (whether a word is male or female or neuter) has been hijacked by those scared of "sex" (whether an organism is): but I am fighting a losing battle with that. It is – and should be – the Sex Discrimination Act, not the Gender Discrimination Act, for example. Si Trew (talk) 23:41, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually English does have grammatical gender. Other than pronouns it is now mostly vestigial and aligned with biological gender in almost all cases (ships are an exception) but it does exist - read the article gender in English. To put it bluntly you are wrong with regards "sex" and "gender" (sex is biological, gender is social) but further discussion of this is very off topic here. Thryduulf (talk) 07:58, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, off-topic. One of the articles you pointed out says "gender" almost exclusively meant grammatical gender until some sexologist added its sense in 1955, but it didn't catch on until the 1970s. I am fighting a war long lost. Si Trew (talk) 19:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to ESS and add a witkionary link -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 05:22, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Thry with same preference. I'd tend to go with Thry's first (soft R to wikt). I know we are WP:NOTDICDEF. My allusion to diminutives was simply that in my opinion the "-ess" is seen by some to imply the female is of lower status than the male (i.e. is in effect a diminutive), in words like waitress, hostess (DAB); host is also a DAB which refers to it, but hostess does not refer to host), stewardess, but probably not in actress (though many female thespians now call themselves actors) nor in air stewardess nor air hostess, for etymological reasons. Seamstress R's to dressmaker but seamster R's to sewing. I was just fishing for analogues, not in dictionaries, but in the EN:WP corpus. Si Trew (talk) 23:35, 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.

News, Sport, Music, Movies, Money, Cars, Shopping and more from MSN UK[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) 15:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term - TheChampionMan1234 08:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I wouldn't object to this being speedy deleted per WP:CSD#G11 as exclusively promotional if others agree. Thryduulf (talk) 16:52, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as promotional and unlikely search term. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:12, 27 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.

Windows 2013[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 14:20, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Invented name. - TheChampionMan1234 08:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Windows 2007" would have, but it does not redirect to Microsoft Office 2007. Granted, that argument was not presented in the RfD, so this situation is different. Your point is a good one but I'm still inclined to agree with the consensus in the previous discussions, for consistency's sake. Ivanvector (talk) 16:20, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - likely search term, directs readers to what I'd guess they're looking for. Thryduulf's point isn't entirely unbelievable, though, and I wouldn't be averse to a disambig page. WilyD 17:42, 12 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.

JabirOS[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) 15:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable distro. - TheChampionMan1234 07:58, 24 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.

Merged From -CURRENT[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) 15:54, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is this meant to mean? - TheChampionMan1234 07:57, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Technical term in FreeBSD release management: -CURRENT is their devevelopment version, which is then merged into a release version. But not a useful redirect for WP; can safely be deleted. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 08:32, 24 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.

Fully Automatic Installation[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) 15:53, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Not directly related to target, there is a page on German Wikipedia (de:Fully Automatic Installation) - TheChampionMan1234 07:51, 24 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.

Jungguk[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) 15:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not especially Korean - TheChampionMan1234 04:27, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's unfortunate we don't have those redirects but that's not a reason to make the problem worse per WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. These redirects may be useful for people whose first language isn't Korean but can understand it to some extent and/or who don't have access to a Korean keyboard. Siuenti (talk) 14:53, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think Siuenti's argument is correct. If it's an official minority language of a country we should have the redirect in all cases. I unfortunately do not have the linguistic ability to make them accurately, or I would do so. DGG ( talk ) 09:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are 56 officially recognized languages in China. Several of these languages have different written forms and prominent dialects, probably amassing to 500+ ways to state those two terms that are subjects of this discussion. Am I getting you right – you suggest to create redirects for all of them? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 11:32, 14 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, - TheChampionMan1234 07:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While Korean is a minority language in China, these redirects aren't Korean. Koreans don't use the Latin alphabet. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 14:37, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Oiyarbepsy. Also 중국 (the actual Korean language word for China) does not exist anyway, and Revised Romanization of Korean is not officially used in China. 61.10.165.33 (talk) 01:26, 1 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.

Vladimir Putin'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 Delete. Everyone agrees that it shouldn't have been created in the first place, and the only arguments for deleting it is that it may be useful, but those arguments are negated by the fact that it is actually not in use. (non-admin closure) — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 02:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term. - TheChampionMan1234 04:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. We don't redir from possessives; they get fixed in-place to, e.g., [[Putin]]'s.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, harmless. Don't go around creating those, but don't go out of your way to delete them. —Kusma (t·c) 12:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kusma. It's what I call RfD Zen: it shouldn't've been created, but now it shouldn't be deleted. While many such redirects are more or less neutral in terms of value, this one is explicitly helpful. While SMcCandlish points out the right way to link from possessives, there's certainly no harm in helping along users not in the know. I can't recall any specific examples offhand, but I believe similar redirects exist as well. --BDD (talk) 14:34, 4 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, - TheChampionMan1234 07:36, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@BDD: If anyone links to this, assuming that its a redlink, they would see that they have done the wrong thing and would fix it. If they see a bluelink, on the other hand, they would assume that this way is corrent, when its in fact not. - TheChampionMan1234 07:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BDD. @TheChampionMan1234: this is not incorrect. People familiar with Wikipedia's naming conventions and formatting will realise that this is not how we do it and fix it, but we should not go out of our way to make things harder for those who are not so familiar. Also, you oughtn't be relisting your own discussions, much better that you ask someone independent to assess the consensus and let them relist it if they think more discussion will help form a consensus if there isn't currently one. Thryduulf (talk) 17:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per SMcCandlish. This is non-standard, we should fix the mistake and discourage further errors. Furthermore we should make an effort to mentor new users who make mistakes, not accommodate our guidelines so that their mistakes aren't mistakes any more. This is not WP:BITEy - it encourages retention of quality editors. Ivanvector (talk) 17:08, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: it's incorrect per the guidelines. I doubt anyone would genuinely believe Vladimir Putin to be a redlink, so anyone should be able to realise something is wrong. Besides, this redirect is not actually in use, so it's not helping the newbies. Since it has no MOS value and no newbie-helping value (if one believes that should be a heavy consideration) let's get rid of it and keep everything sensibly standardised. BethNaught (talk) 17:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The stats linked above show that actually this redirect is used, meaning either that it is linked from outside Wikipedia and/or people are searching on this term. Regardless, your comment is factually inaccurate - it does have value to help newbies (and others) find the content they are looking for, even if it would not be recommended as an internal link (cf. {{R from misspelling}}, {{R from wrong name}}, etc). Thryduulf (talk) 08:37, 12 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.

MiC/ro$oft[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) 15:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another useless Eubot implausible typo � (talk) 06:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete. Micro$oft is a plausible search term, but this is not. I can't find any uses outside of Wikipedia mirrors. Thryduulf (talk) 17:05, 24 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.

RockAndRoll[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 Rock and roll. Though it's not clear from its documentation, {{R from CamelCase}} is suitable for any camel-case redirects, not just legacy ones. --BDD (talk) 15:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why this redirects to Russian Rock rather than Rock and Roll. I'd move it myself but I wanted to check if there was some reason I was missing that may explain it. Although actually, I'm not sure the phrase without spaces is really a helpful or plausible search term, so maybe it would just be deleted.Yaksar (let's chat) 05:46, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It's been here since 2007, there are probably external sites linking it, and yes, some people still use CamelCase. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 15:06, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's been here since 2007, yes, but as a redirect to Russian Rock. Unless there are external sites who wanted to direct their users to the Russian rock article through an evidently unrelated term, it seems that no one has ever used this term to get to our normal Rock and roll page.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:30, 25 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.

Conspiratard[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. This was not a strong consensus, but given "needlessly offensive" is not a reason to delete a redirect and there is insufficient data to determine how likely the search term is (it was nominated here minutes after creation) meaning we have no way to reliably weight the differing thoughts on this point. Thryduulf (talk) 08:44, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At best, this needs a new target. At worst, it needs deletion. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:46, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Conspiracy theory. I'm pretty sure this is a dismissive term for conspiracy crackpots used in some internet communities. I'm not sure how likely of a search it is though.--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak retarget per Yaksar... Urban dictionary has it but I don't think that site is RS. Redirects don't have to be RS, but it could also fall under WP:DICDEF. Si Trew (talk) 14:26, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Needlessly offensive, not discussed on Wikipedia, and too obscure to be a likely search term. --BDD (talk) 14:55, 24 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.

Ukrains Great Patriotic War[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) 15:50, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A bizarre unused name, a misspelling, and totally implausible. The article it redirects to isn't even about the war, which definitely isn't called "Ukrains Great Patriotic War". RGloucester — ☎ 03:32, 24 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.

Homocyclic compound[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) 15:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:RFD#DELETE point 10: redirects to Heterocyclic compound, its antonym (where it is not discussed except for a brief mention in the lead) but is certainly a candidate for a complete article (cycloalkane + cyclosilane + cycloborane, etc.). הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 01:04, 24 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.

List of lists of lists which do not list themselves[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) 15:52, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Wikipedia in joke not suitable for a page Fitnr 00:03, 24 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_September_24&oldid=1050183247"