Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 17[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 17, 2015.

Other government types[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. Just Chilling (talk) 03:09, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect isn't very helpful since it doesn't specify what it is "other" than. Rather misleading. Steel1943 (talk) 23:44, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete as vague. I don't know what "other" is meant to exclude. --Lenticel (talk) 02:10, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because there appears to be no clear target. Rubbish computer 02:10, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as the target lists many different types of governments, so would presumably list whatever other is being othered -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hypothetical scenario here: Let's say I'm a reader who is currently viewing the article Government, but after reading the article, I'm curious about other types of government. So, I type "other government types" in the search bar, which directs me to the nominated redirect, and then ... I get redirected back to Government. How bizarre and confusing! Steel1943 (talk) 03:26, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The government[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 Government. --BDD (talk) 17:21, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, there has been a bit of a disagreement on whether this redirect should target Government or State (polity). Should we just retarget this to Government (disambiguation) (after creating it) and call it a day? Steel1943 (talk) 23:38, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Porky pie[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 26#Porky pie

Ziekte[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. Just Chilling (talk) 03:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disease is not especially Dutch. Mr. Guye (talk) 21:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:FORRED. Rubbish computer 02:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - directs readers to what they're looking for; nomination statement contains neither a suggested action nor any information apparently relevant to this redirect. So, ... what? WilyD 09:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:R#D8 and because the term isn't mentioned at the target article. -- Tavix (talk) 13:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOTDIC Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary. General topic with no particular affinity for Dutch -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

ReviseF65[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. Just Chilling (talk) 03:12, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Title has something to do with a BDSM event in Oslo, Norway and there is a page about it on the Norwegian Wikipedia. Not notable as a redirect. Mr. Guye (talk) 21:46, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Gross assault[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 Assault#Aggravated assault. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 17:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is gross, but an expression of opinion is not allowed in redirects. WP:POV. Mr. Guye (talk) 21:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Nứng[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. Just Chilling (talk) 03:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sexiness is not especially Vietnamese. Mr. Guye (talk) 21:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Google Translate says the word translates to "hot" specifically. --Mr. Guye (talk) 22:07, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as implausible synonym since hot doesn't necessarily imply sexual arousal --Lenticel (talk) 00:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as implausible synonym and per WP:FORRED as is in an unrelated foreign language. Rubbish computer 02:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOTDIC Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary. General topic with no particular affinity for any language, even if French is called the language of love. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 03:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Lawless (2013 film)[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. Just Chilling (talk) 03:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is neither a 2013 film nor is it titled Lawless. -- Tavix (talk) 21:39, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Lawless (film) is an unrelated film released in 2012. The current target notes that it was going to be called Lawless, but allowed the 2012 film to use the name (it may (or may not) now be going to be called Weightless). Thryduulf (talk) 22:09, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a redirect with no clear target and per WP:RFD#D5 as a confusing redirect. Rubbish computer 02:21, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it is not a 2013 film -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Hot men[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. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 16:55, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Like "Hot chicks" and "Hot women", this encyclopedia ain't a porn website nor is it Match.com. Mr. Guye (talk) 20:42, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to User:Ivanvector Delete per nom. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:08, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Rubbish computer 02:22, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (cross-posted to both) I created "Hot men" and "Hot women" as redirects to Physical attractiveness for a simple reason: a non-editor friend typed them into the search engine and didn't get any useful results. The statistics show that there's a 100 or so people each month who use the redirect. Wikipedia is not a pornography site or a dating site but it does cover issues that are considered romantic and/or erotic. 'Hot' is a synonym for physically or sexually attractive. Acknowledging that it is a synonym does not make Wikipedia into a pornography website or a dating site, unless someone gets some kind of sexual thrill out of typing in "Hot (wo)men" into the search engine and being taken to a rather dry article whose visual content consists primarily of classical and Renaissance sculptures. I fail to see how these redirects detract from Wikipedia's mission. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:37, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tom Morris. Thryduulf (talk) 09:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - seems to direct readers to what they're looking for. Nomination statement doesn't suggest any action, nor can any be inferred from what appears to be a non-sequitor. WilyD 09:11, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as this redirect is used to reach its target, so appears useful per WP:R#K5. Rubbish computer 11:36, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tom Morris, and thanks both for creating these and for that excellent synopsis. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:18, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete purely to preserve my dissent the on record, as it seems there's not much chance of this being deleted. "Hot" refers to temperature, and this is a colloquialism. I'm not sure this combination of words would have the same meaning in all English speaking locations/varieties, though I suppose those searching for this would not likely be looking for literally hot beings. However Tom Morris makes a good case, it has traffic, and WP:R#K5 is viable here: hence the weak.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 06:06, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Hot women[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. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 16:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Same as "Hot chicks" Wikipedia isn't porn nor is it eHarmony. Mr. Guye (talk) 20:37, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep (cross-posted to both) I created "Hot men" and "Hot women" as redirects to Physical attractiveness for a simple reason: a non-editor friend typed them into the search engine and didn't get any useful results. The statistics show that there's a 100 or so people each month who use the redirect. Wikipedia is not a pornography site or a dating site but it does cover issues that are considered romantic and/or erotic. 'Hot' is a synonym for physically or sexually attractive. Acknowledging that it is a synonym does not make Wikipedia into a pornography website or a dating site, unless someone gets some kind of sexual thrill out of typing in "Hot (wo)men" into the search engine and being taken to a rather dry article whose visual content consists primarily of classical and Renaissance sculptures. I fail to see how these redirects detract from Wikipedia's mission. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:37, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tom Morris. Thryduulf (talk) 09:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - no action suggested by nominator, who only offers a few apparent non-sequitors. WilyD 09:09, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:R#K5 as this redirect is used. Rubbish computer 11:37, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Hot men. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:18, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete purely to preserve my dissent the on record, as it seems there's not much chance of this being deleted. "Hot" refers to temperature, and this is a colloquialism. I'm not sure this combination of words would have the same meaning in all English speaking locations/varieties, though I suppose those searching for this would not likely be looking for literally hot beings. However Tom Morris makes a good case, it has traffic, and WP:R#K5 is viable here: hence the weak.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 06:06, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Physique[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 disambiguate. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 17:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Physique is more than how attractive someone is. Mr. Guye (talk) 20:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • We really ought to have something here, but I'm not immediately finding any suitable target (the current one is not wrong per se, but we can certainly do better I think). Thryduulf (talk) 22:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate. On the page, include at least Physical fitness and Physical strength. Steel1943 (talk) 22:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate as this could refer to several articles. Rubbish computer 11:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Hot chicks[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 24#Hot chicks

Umadbro[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) 17:12, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not mentioned at the target or anywhere else on Wikipedia. -- Tavix (talk) 20:24, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Yee (meme)[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) 17:12, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable meme that isn't mentioned at the target. -- Tavix (talk) 20:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Goldfish racing[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) 17:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Subject not in article. May or may not be an example of animal cruelty. Mr. Guye (talk) 20:10, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:REDLINK; this regrettably appears to be something we could write an article about. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:11, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - to encourage creation, and avoid endorsing a position taken by PETA. WilyD 09:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above reasons. Rubbish computer 11:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(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.

Mfq3[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) 17:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect is not mentioned at the target. Also, most results found for this term via search engines return information for a mod for Quake 3 called "Military Forces Quake 3". So, probably delete as misleading and not retarget per WP:NOTWIKIA. Steel1943 (talk) 17:14, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Fowj[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) 17:09, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The word is not mentioned in the article, and I'm not able to find any connections that the redirect has with the target through search engines or otherwise. Per the engines, the most notable subject on the first few results is a community in Afghanistan. So, I'd say delete as confusing and per WP:REDLINK at best. Steel1943 (talk) 17:09, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Jeesh[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) 17:08, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not finding any notable references that connect this term with "army". Also, all search engine hits I get return either an author of books (author's surname) or a non-notable musician who uses the term "Jeesh" as an alias. Steel1943 (talk) 16:56, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I noticed that as well, but didn't recommend it since it seems that all instances of the subject which you refer seems to be "Ender's Jeesh" specifically, so calling it just "Jeesh" could possibly be an inaccurate WP:PTM. Steel1943 (talk) 02:03, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOTDIC Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary. Apparently it's one way to phonetically write the Arabic word for army -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 07:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Chair force[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. --BDD (talk) 17:07, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a completely ridiculous redirect to me. An IP blanked it because he/she thought so, I restored it and took it here. Compassionate727 (talk) 16:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep per WP:RNEUTRAL, this seems to be a reasonably well-known slang moniker for the USAF, and doesn't seem to be ambiguous with anything else. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:37, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: whether to Keep or Delete would for me depend on whether or not this team's usage is supported by reliable sources. Rubbish computer 17:05, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I'm finding many mentions that link this term to USAF. However, I'm also a bit leaning to delete since this is nearing the edge of the "abusive and offensive" criteria. The terms seems to mean that the Air Force are a bunch of armchair generals compared to the other branches of military who fight on the ground like real men. --Lenticel (talk) 01:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is derogatory, but it's also a term that's in actual common use. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 01:27, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - While the term is pejorative, it's pejorative in the sense that you can even go to military.com to find self-referential and gentle self-mocking about it. And we're additionally talking about many references being made in many different sources. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:52, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

FC Spöck[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. WP:INVOLVED close given the size of the backlog and clear consensus. --BDD (talk) 14:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Searching revealed a club in Stutensee of this name, but I don't think it has any official link to Kalrsruher SC. (Karlsruher is probably the closest major club.) Spöck seems to play in the Verbandsliga Baden, and some of those articles have redlinks to FC Spöck (new). So I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, except that the status quo is going to confuse readers. --BDD (talk) 13:19, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 13:19, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:REDLINK and fix the redlinks to FC Spöck (new). It looks like an editor who doesn't know about {{red link}} intended links for {{red link}} but didn't want them redirecting to Karlsruher SC, and that suggests to me that the teams are not related. If we don't fix those links, we're going to end up with an article at FC Spöck (new). Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:56, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and fix redlinks per Ivanvector. Rubbish computer 17:07, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - seem to be separate clubs, no need for the redirect. GiantSnowman 17:47, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but comment – It is not entirely true that the club has no ties to Karlsruher SC. According to the German Wikipedia, the women's football section of the club was quite successful on a regional level in the 1980s before splitting from the main club in 1990 under the name DFC Spöck (Damen-Fußballclub or "Ladies' football club"). The new-formed club was on the brink of promotion to the Bundesliga a couple of times before slowly fading into nirvana. In 2001, DFC Eggenstein (as the club was called since 1993) eventually dissolved, with the team joining Karlsruher SC as its new women's football division.

    To be honest, I am not familiar with the notability level for German women's football clubs below the Bundesliga levels. Nevertheless, given (D)FC Spöck's participation in several Bundesliga promotion tournaments, it should easily be possible to meet WP:GNG at least. The article of the club should probably be created at either DFC Spöck or DFC Eggenstein, with FC Spöck pointing to one of these locations if necessary. Either way, the redirect to KSC needs to be deleted. – Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 19:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Indoor equipment[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 Equipment. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:35, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Current target of redirect is not exclusive to indoor use. Otherwise, the redirect seems too ambiguous to refer to any specific subject or helpful as a disambiguation page. Steel1943 (talk) 09:12, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and WP:REDLINK. Rubbish computer 11:59, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nom. As noted, impossibly vague.TheLongTone (talk) 13:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Equipment (a dab page). Someone searching for this term will learn at that dab page that we organise our content by function rather than by it's location, so they can find what they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 14:16, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Equipment. I find it hard to imagine someone typing this into the search box and not finding what they're looking for at the dab page. My guess is this refers more to gear for indoor sports than to other sorts of equipment, but that's my bias. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Equipment. Compassionate727 (talk) 15:34, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Equipment... I completely agree with what's said above. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to equipment (I didn't realise this was a disambiguation page) as this seems plausible. Rubbish computer 11:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Equipment.[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) 17:06, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Period at the end of the title makes it an unlikely search term. Either weak retarget to Equipment or delete. Steel1943 (talk) 09:10, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • very, very weak retarget to Equipment. Very few redirects with trailing punctuation are useful search terms, however this might be one as it has history and gets a smattering of hits. The history is that Tool was moved (without discussion) to this title in 2006 (presumably as Equipment (with no full stop) already existed as a redirect to Tool at that point, it is now an independent dab page) and then moved back 8 days later, see Talk:Tool/Archive 1#Page move, tools → Equipment. and the immediately following requested move. Thryduulf (talk) 12:19, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as implausible search term. Rubbish computer 12:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it basically says right on the talk page that Tool was moved here because Equipment was in the way so whoever did it just added a period. I'm surprised this had to go through the entire requested move process to be reverted. No incoming links from our wiki; with respect to Thryduulf the level of activity looks to me like bot noise, only 1 hit every few days. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:02, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the period makes this really implausible. Compassionate727 (talk) 15:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unlikley search term -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 07:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Xtreme Tennis[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) 17:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not explained or mentioned in target article. Possibly WP:PROMO-tional. Steel1943 (talk) 08:47, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Science of a bullet[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 Ballistics. --BDD (talk) 17:04, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The title of the redirect could potentially give the reader the false expectation of finding an article with this specific topic. (Also, this redirect was previously an article, but it was just an editor copy-and-pasting the "Materials" section of Bullet to this title: this material was not merged into Bullet.) Steel1943 (talk) 08:19, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Shields of strength[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) 17:02, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This title sounds like an item someone would find in an RPG. Either way, this term is not mentioned in the article, and all search results I have per search engines (and the redirect's history as an article) are for a company that makes dog tags. So, either delete per WP:REDLINK or for being a WP:PROMO. Steel1943 (talk) 07:47, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Rubbish computer 12:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smite with my +1 Broadsword of Deletion. I get the same results as Steel1943. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:07, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Compassionate727 (talk) 16:38, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cast Disintegrate Redirect. My search confirms the promo issues as well. --Lenticel (talk) 01:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Gourmette chain[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 26#Gourmette chain

Wikipedia:Destiny[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 Project Destiny. (This is the equivalent of me withdrawing my nomination at this point, so I'm going with it.) (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 12:37, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CNR with no association to functions of Wikipedia. Steel1943 (talk) 07:08, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep but change back to what it was supposed to be, a redirect to Project Destiny for technical reasons that was changed for no clear reason-- SonicAD (talk) 07:14, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SonicAD: Per WP:NC-COLON, what you are asking is technically misleading due to restrictions with the software that runs Wikipedia. (In fact, this section actually has an example for "Project Mersh" that has no colon) This redirect is in the "Wikipedia:" namespace. Steel1943 (talk) 07:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Project Destiny per SonicAD. The correct title of that article is Project: Destiny, but for technical reasons that title is the same page as Wikipedia:Destiny ("Project" is an alias for the "Wikipedia" namespace on en.wp). This redirect needs to exist to enable people to find the content they are looking for when they search for the correct title. Thryduulf (talk) 12:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Project Destiny per SonicAD. Rubbish computer 12:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

'nam[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 Vietnam War. --BDD (talk) 17:01, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak retarget to Nam, but I doubt its a plausible search term, whatever it means - TheChampionMan1234 04:42, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep it is American English slang for Vietnam; and very plausible search term. Possibly retarget to the disambiguation page, because it could be the country or the Vietnam War. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and possibly disambiguate as appears to be a plausible search term. Rubbish computer 12:28, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per the IP. This is commonly used to refer to both the Vietnam War and to Vietnam the country, the latter particularly during the Vietnam War era. Thryduulf (talk) 12:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiging does seem like the answer. WilyD 15:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Vietnam War. The shortcut derives from American involvement in the war and the counterculture which developed; I suspect (but don't have the time to try to confirm) that this was an unknown term prior to the war. For users who type "'nam" looking for the country and not the war, Vietnam is linked from the war article's very first sentence. If we choose to disambiguate instead, then the target should be nam (which lists both of these articles already) rather than creating a new, (mostly) redundant disambiguation page. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:05, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Vietnam War. If this term is used, then it either relates to the country or (most likely) the aforementioned war. If someone means the nation, then the country's wiki page is already immediately linked at the beginning of the war's article. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Vietnam War per above. --Lenticel (talk) 00:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Vietnam War per CoffeeWithMarkets and others above.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Template:Translation attribution[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 WP:CSD#G6 by RHaworth. Thryduulf (talk) 12:42, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:XNR to an unused (no transclusions) userfied template. As it is userfied it shouldn't still appear from TemplateSpace -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:39, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Vice President of the Czech Republic[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) 16:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think this redirect is confusing. The target doesn't mention a "vice president of the Czech Republic" and I wasn't able to verify if that's actually a position. -- Tavix (talk) 04:07, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's not position of the Vice President of the Czech Republic. Redirect was made to not to confuse people. -- Itsyoungrapper (talk) 08:44, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as if there is no Vice President of the Czech Republic, there is no need for this redirect to exist. Rubbish computer 12:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • (nom) Delete per Itsyoungrapper, since this isn't actually a position. -- Tavix (talk) 14:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RFD#D2: misleading/confusing. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:29, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a real position. The redirect gives the impression that it is a synonym or related topic discussed elsewhere in the article. Reach Out to the Truth 23:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as confusing --Lenticel (talk) 03:16, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Foogle[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 The Architecture of the Arkansas Ozarks#Characters. --BDD (talk) 16:54, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are several reasons why this redirect is not helpful, and could actually cause harm. For one, its target is so notable that getting the first letter incorrect in the title is very unlikely; the amount of page views in the last few days is very minimal. For two, several domain names using this word have been registered by companies other than Google; this redirect being in place gives readers the false expectation that "Foogle" and "Google" are directly related. And lastly, if this redirect exists for a long period of time, since third party web sites sometimes use Wikipedia to create mirrors of redirects, these sites could unintentionally start to mislead readers into thinking that the terms are one in the same; I mean, to this very day, thanks to a bad redirect towards Nintendo, several Wikipedia mirrors are stuck believing that the term Hujk refers to "Nintendo" since it targeted Nintendo for 7 years. Steel1943 (talk) 04:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Foogle (disambiguation)[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) 16:53, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are no instances of the word "Foogle" on the target page. This redirect's existence could lead the reader to believe that Wikipedia has multiple article subjects named "Foogle" as its actual spelling, which it doesn't. (The only subject we currently have is a misspelling'.) Steel1943 (talk) 03:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Malaixiya[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. --BDD (talk) 16:51, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not related to Chinese. GZWDer (talk) 05:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - unambiguously redirects readers to the content they're looking for, no rationale has been presented for deletion. (Nevermind that about a quarter of Malaysians are Malaysian Chinese who widely speak Chinese) WilyD 10:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:FORRED as is in an unrelated foreign language. --Rubbish computer 12:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:R#K5. This nation is close to China and likely to be a search target for Chinese viewers. The page views confirm its usefulness to at least some people. ~ RobTalk 18:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. (Now neutral, given TheChampionMan1234's comment below.) Steel1943 (talk) 03:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC) Unlike some of the "keeper(s)" above, I believe that WP:FORRED, along with almost any other article-related policy, can also be applied to redirects to an extent. In this case, it seems that the word has no prominent use in the English language, and would this confuse readers looking up this term and not being redirected to the article presented in the same language as the redirect. Also, translations of terms that are non-English to their respective language articles is handled by Wikidata interwiki links; keeping these foreign language redirects targeting non-foreign articles compromises the usefulness of Wikidata and interwiki searches. Steel1943 (talk) 21:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with Steel1943, per my notvote at #Feilvbin, above. Si Trew (talk) 23:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep due to the nearly 1/4 of the population being Chinese -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:52, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...And how is this useful to those who speak English? Steel1943 (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite our bad reputations, Anglophones are not all unilingual. And (although you seem to be unaware of this) some people speak English as a Second Language. WilyD 16:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You just described the purpose of Wikidata and interwiki links. Having a non-English title built into the English Wikipedia as a redirect to an article in English rather than its "other language equivalent", in my opinion, causes more harm than good. Steel1943 (talk) 17:46, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This topic has an affinity for Chinese, per the large minority population. See my other rationales for deleting non-English redirects based on non-affinity, and many other people's as well. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:08, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 02:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly a related language, albeit not official
  • Keep The redirects have affinity to the target article. 25% is a sizable chunk of the Malaysian population --Lenticel (talk) 04:54, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Malaixiya - a sizable minority of the people who live in this country are likely to refer to it by this name, so it is culturally relevant. No comment on the redirect which ChampionMan just added, I don't know what language that is.Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector: TheChampionMan1234 added the Chinese characters used to spell Malaysia. Compassionate727 (talk) 17:53, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per same rationale, then. Thanks. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:34, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Soda drinking[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) 16:49, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTHOWTO. That, and Soda is a disambiguation page, and I really don't feel like drinking baking soda. Steel1943 (talk) 00:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Rubbish computer 01:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A "Soda" when used as a name for a drink in ordinary English at least in the NE United States does mean a soft drink; it's alternative use when in conjunction with an alcoholic drink name, is "Club soda" or "Seltzer" or soda water" -- in all cases it refers to the production of a bubbly drink by dissolving sodium bicarbonate in water (or nowadays by pumping CO2 into water) . For examples of the usage see Google books for "give me a soda" DGG ( talk ) 20:59, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That statement accurately supports the existence of a redirect by the name "Soda drink" (which I just created); however, this redirect is "Soda drinking", which is not the subject of the target article. Steel1943 (talk) 13:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 02:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Steel1943's reply to DGG. Also, drinking baking soda would probably be exceptionally bad, both because of the violent reaction that would be experienced with one's stomach acids, and also because it's not a liquid. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 02:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Soda Drinker Pro. When the context is drinking, "soda" always means "soft drink" and never "baking soda", but the target (a rather bizarre subject I admit) starts with "Soda Drinker Pro is a video game that simulates the act of drinking soda". Thryduulf (talk) 13:10, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Soda" drinking could also refer to certain alcoholic drinks. I think that this suggested target is so obscure as to be unhelpful from this redirect, but good find. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:28, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record, I was about to say almost exactly what Ivanvector said in their second sentence above, but they beat me to it. Steel1943 (talk) 15:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Finite module[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 24#Finite module

Fallout redirects[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. WP:INVOLVED close given the size of the backlog and clear consensus. --BDD (talk) 14:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It pains me to do this, since I love Fallout, but none of these concepts are mentioned at the target article. And since they're concepts present in multiple Fallout games, retargeting to just one of them doesn't make much sense to me. --BDD (talk) 01:56, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and WP:NOTWIKIA. Steel1943 (talk) 05:56, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and WP:NOTWIKIA. Rubbish computer 12:47, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The concept of the 'Garden of Eden' is a general one with a meaning beyond the video game series. As for the other linkages made, the terms aren't particularly notable outside of the game series. Even someone that knows of the games and have seen them being played may not know or understand the concepts of 'radaway', 'GECK', or 'Nightkin'... 'Nuka cola' is a bit different given its quasi-meme status, so people who haven't played the games might know of it (same as non-Half-Life players might recognize a plush-toy headcrab)... but it's still not really helpful in the Wikipedia context. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:24, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Musad'afin[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) 16:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suggesting deletion. Apparently it's some sort of Islamic term, but I don't think it's a plausible redirect to "weak". Howicus (Did I mess up?) 00:07, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - It looks like "Musadafin"/"Mustad'afin"/etc translates to something like "those who are oppressed", "those who are kept down", "the downtrodden", and so on. The redirect that we have now just isn't right at all. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:28, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOTDIC Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary. General topic with no particular affinity for any language. And per the above, it appears to be the wrong target anyways -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Https en.wikipedia.org wiki Main Page[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) 16:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term, why not just type "main page". - TheChampionMan1234 00:05, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as implausible search term, and completely unnecessary when this url can be typed into the top and reach it reached just as quickly. --Rubbish computer 00:49, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as implausible search term. The url markups might cause some technical issues too. --Lenticel (talk) 01:07, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom & above. Not helpful anyway. theenjay36 11:46, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_August_17&oldid=1050183163"