Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 24[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 24, 2015.

Watching paint dry[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 soft redirect. --BDD (talk) 13:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect's subject is not mentioned at the target. This is part of a saying that goes "It's as exciting as watching paint dry", so I assume that there may be a good retargetting option out there, but I am currently unable to find one. Steel1943 (talk) 23:49, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'm okay with soft retarget as well --Lenticel (talk) 05:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But if the consensus has changed so that now "anything not in Wikipedia but in Wiktionary should be soft redirected thence" then we should say so. I think we need a rationale stronger than "Wiktionary explains the meaning" (appropriately or not); something that more closely justifies its inclusion in an encyclopaedia. Si Trew (talk) 12:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect. Soft redirects to Wiktionary should be used where all of the following are true:
    • There is no scope for an encyclopaedia article at this title
    • There is no other Wikipedia page to which this would be an appropriate redirect.
    • There is a relevant entry in Wiktionary
    • People do, or are likely to, search for the term on Wikipedia.
    In my view all of these criteria are met in this case, and so we should soft redirect. The "keep being re-created and re-deleted" language is years out of date. Thryduulf (talk) 14:23, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect per Thryduulf, who painted a beautiful picture of when to use a Wiktionary soft redirect. This is exactly what I've thought about the subject but never seen it put in words before. If you don't mind, I've WP:BOLDLY added that description to {{Wiktionary redirect}}. From my experience here, this seems to fall in line with consensus and is a lot better than what was there before (which basically said that it's used due to previous recreations, which is not true.) Message/ping me if you disagree and we'll talk. -- Tavix (talk) 19:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I certainly don't disagree with that course of action - far from it! Thryduulf (talk) 20:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I thought that was obvious, sorry. I'm fine with the A3 too, because I don't think Wiktionary redirects should be speedy-able unless the entry doesn't exist, which would then be G8. RFD should be able to handle it anyway. If someone disagrees, they're definitely welcome to challenge it. I'm just trying to be transparent with the "change". -- Tavix (talk) 01:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I agree with both Thryduulf's critera and Tavix' adding them to the doc. It's a bit of an oligarchichal add, but then, we must go with the silent majority really. What I wanted to do was discourage just "any word I ever heard of" being added to Wikipedia, and in particular to EN:WP, because Wiktionary has a different way of organising different languages, which can make things confusing. May I suggest (or boldly do) one small change: "Should be used where all of the following are true" -> "Should be used only when". But the points are well made so I agree, Soft redirect in this case. And thanks for all, for the thought put into formulating this guideline. Si Trew (talk) 07:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have done a bit of ce over at the doc. I should be pleased if y'all could cast your eye over my revisions there. Just to tighten, not to make any substantive change, in particular, I have not changed Thryduulf's wording of the four points above, and also I have put it into Category:Redirect templates which may be wrong as that maybe should be on the page itself rather than the docinclu. I made a couple of edits here at RfD to make this discussion into a collapse box, but undid those, because it's intermingled with the discussion about this particular redirect. Si Trew (talk) 07:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved (with cut and paste) the discussion over at WP:NOT to here at WT:RFD#Does WP:NOT apply to redirects?. I should be pleased if y'all would contribute there. Si Trew (talk) 08:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect to wikt:watch paint dry per Godsy, and per recent similar discussions on well-known English-language idioms which resulted in the same action. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:18, 27 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.

South Buckhead (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) 13:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Needless redirect to a page that wasn't a proper disambiguation page originally. The trivial distinction made in the original page contents has been noted at Buckhead, Atlanta#Neighborhoods instead. As the improper disambiguation is gone, the redirect implying that a disambiguation page exists is harmful. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 21:12, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - it's a double redirect, and since the ambiguity which the dab page was trying to solve has been resolved, there's no point keeping this. Stats are zero. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Stats are zero because it was created 3 days ago. -- Tavix (talk) 21:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Huh. Why is there a bot that creates redirects to disambiguation pages? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 01:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator erased the disambiguation page formerly at South Buckhead, which existed from 2012 to 2015. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...The ones that end with "(disambiguation)"? It's because ... so we don't have to. However, a "false positive" happens when the disambiguation page later is no longer a disambiguation page, such as this situation. It happens. Steel1943 (talk) 19:00, 25 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.

When the Pawn Hits the Conflicts He Thinks like a King What He Knows Throws the Blows When He Goes to the Fight and He'll Win the Whole Thing 'fore He Enters the Ring There's No Body to Batter When Your Mind Is Your Might so When You Go Solo, You Hold[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. Taking into account relevant precedents and the discussion here, the general sentiment is that these truncated versions of over-length titles are, while harmless, completely useless, so they should be deleted to discourage creation of similar redirects for other works of art with deliberately over-long titles. Deryck C. 10:01, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 July 18#The Boy Bands Have Won, and All the Copyists and the Tribute Bands and the TV Talent Show Producers Have Won, If We Allow Our Culture to Be Shaped by Mimicry, Whether from Lack of Ideas or from Exaggerated Respect. You Should Never Try to Freeze Culture. -- Schneelocke (talk) 22:22, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy close since no rationale has been presented, no suggested action has been presented, the other discussion has yet to close, and the only statement in this nomination is similar to an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. Otherwise, (Statement no longer valid.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC) Keep since the redirect is unambiguous, and since WP:TITLELENGTH states that the title cannot be any longer than this. Steel1943 (talk) 22:52, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So you are calling every other good-faith editor in this discussion irrational? THat is not nice. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonTrew (talk • contribs) 22:47, 10 August 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If a reader copies and pastes the exact, actual title of the work in the search box, this is what Wikipedia will search for, and the reader will be taken to the correct article. bd2412 T 01:23, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Not true. If you copy and paste the entire thing into the search box, you get search results which list the article containing the text, but not taken to the article directly. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:53, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Your rationale presented, sir, is WP:CONCISE (a subsection of WP:TITLE) - Steel1943 is hoist with his own petard (oh we don't have that WP:QUOTATION) for something sorry wife walked in entirely forgot what he is hoist with. As if anyone knows what a petard is, anyway. Si Trew (talk) 10:21, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Comment. There is no need for keeping full quotes, we are not WikiQuote; WP:NOTQUOTE; and having it hinders any external search from finding that quotation. But my train of thought is still boarding at the station so I strike my delete to leave as a comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonTrew (talk • contribs) 10:21, 9 August 2015
  • Delete - per my point above, this does not function as a redirect for the full title. It is not useful unless a person searching knows exactly what the character limit is on searches, and so is not helpful to navigation. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:53, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why does it matter whether the person searching knows exactly what the character limit is? If that person pastes in a title ten or twenty or fifty characters longer, won't the search be truncated automatically to this length? bd2412 T 15:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Not for me, I get search results, but I've just pinged Tavix who got an error message instead. Is it truncated for you? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • When you use Wikipedia's search function, you get search results, but if you search using the address bar (ie: editing the URL), it'll give you an error message: "The requested page title is too long. It must be no longer than 255 bytes in UTF-8 encoding." It just depends how you search. -- Tavix (talk) 15:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would say that if it depends how you search, and this matches the result for some way of searching, then it is potentially useful. bd2412 T 23:25, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  • It does seem to depend on how you search, but there is only one permutation out of 445 which produces the article, discounting spelling errors. The other 444 produce either search results or an error message, depending on how they're accessed. If search results are useful for 444 variations, they are useful for the other one too. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - plausible search term, argument for deletion seems to rely on the factually incorrect premise that users reading an internet encyclopaedia won't hit it's technical limitation in number of characters. WilyD 09:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite, my argument is that users reading an internet encyclopedia won't know what the technical limit is exactly, and are unlikely to type this exact phrase with it in mind. It's entirely possible to continue typing in the search box when your search is over the character limit. If they get one character wrong or enter one character too many, they don't get the article they're looking for. They might get search results, but they would get search results anyway, so this redirect isn't serving any purpose. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 21:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as harmless. I've read all the arguments above, and I'm still none the wiser about what problem deleting this is attempting to solve. In some months this gets a clearly human level of traffic, so it also appears useful to at least some people. Thryduulf (talk) 23:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per this precedent and WP:R#D8. Redirects should be useful, not necessarily what is technically possible. Not reasonably likely to be searched for this way.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 21:04, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it's a useless redirect, a partial search will get a user close enough to the actual article. We can have redirects of entire sonnets at this rate. Hmph! Montanabw(talk) 20:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I advocated for keeping the similar Chumbawamba redirect, but as I continue to think about the issue, it does seem that for these types of redirects to be useful, a reader would essentially have to know our exact title length restrictions and essentially count characters as they type this entire thing out. That all sounds pretty implausible to me. For titles difficult to guess at or otherwise find, I might still say we could keep these as harmless. The album might fall under that category, though I think most readers who see "When the Pawn..." in the search box will check that out anyway. --BDD (talk) 13:49, 1 September 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 Life and Strange Surprizing Adventures of Robinson Crusoe, of York, Mariner: Who lived Eight and Twenty Years, all alone in an un-inhabited Island on the Coast of America, near the Mouth of the Great River of Oroonoque; Having been cast on Shore by[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 - see my summary of the discussion immediately above. Deryck C. 10:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 July 18#The Boy Bands Have Won, and All the Copyists and the Tribute Bands and the TV Talent Show Producers Have Won, If We Allow Our Culture to Be Shaped by Mimicry, Whether from Lack of Ideas or from Exaggerated Respect. You Should Never Try to Freeze Culture. -- Schneelocke (talk) 22:19, 8 August 2015 (UTC) Schneelocke (talk) 22:22, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy close since no rationale has been presented, no suggested action has been presented, the other discussion has yet to close, and the only statement in this nomination is similar to an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. Otherwise, (Statement no longer valid.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC) Keep since the redirect is unambiguous, and since WP:TITLELENGTH states that the title cannot be any longer than this. Steel1943 (talk) 22:52, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If a reader copies and pastes the exact, actual title of the work in the search box, this is what Wikipedia will search for, and the reader will be taken to the correct article. bd2412 T 01:25, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Remark - this isn't the exact, actual title of the work, it's truncated due to software limitations. A redirect from the complete title would obviously be a keeper; I'm not sure about an arbitrarily truncated one. -- Schneelocke (talk) 10:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not saying this is the exact actual title, I'm saying that if someone pastes the exact actual title into the search bar, Wikipedia will automatically search for this truncated version. bd2412 T 16:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
          • And so would any other search engine. So, in effect, this hinders rather than helps a search. Si Trew (talk) 19:18, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BD2412's point. --Rubbish computer 01:32, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - plausible search term (indeed, the cut-off may be from software limitations, but readers encounter those limits - they're not Gods (at least, many aren't). As noted, no rationale for any action (or potential action) has been suggested, so it's hard to say anything other than "seems fine". WilyD 16:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my comments above and in the older Rfd mentioned by the nominator. In order for this redirect to be useful, a user must know exactly how many characters can be typed into a URL or the search box. The search box does not truncate: if all 252 characters are not typed in this exact combination, or if any more or less characters are typed, the user misses the redirect and gets search results instead. This redirect cuts off mid-sentence; it's extremely unlikely that any reader would ever search for this exact phrase. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:53, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per The Earwig's closing rationale at the aforementioned RFD. This redirect is just like the other one, and I feel like it should suffer the same fate. -- Tavix (talk) 23:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:31, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - same problem as this precedent (which I just noticed Tavix already mentioned). Redirects should be useful, not necessarily what is technically possible. Delete per WP:R#D8 and Ivanvector above.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 21:04, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my comments above. Deleting this will not improve Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 23:19, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Delete': Highly unlikely search and not likely that someone typing in a long title won't have a typo or two anyway, thus defeating the redirect. Montanabw(talk) 20:31, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I checked last night in my woodware copy and the fronticepiece has a far longer title even than if one extended this to the full sentence, so this is not even {{R from full name}} even with what was said above. To avoid error: "Surprizing" is spelled thus, even in British English versions, there's no WP:ENGVAR here. (see -ize). The title in my Everyman cheapo is:
Si Trew (talk) 09:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I advocated for keeping the similar Chumbawamba redirect, but as I continue to think about the issue, it does seem that for these types of redirects to be useful, a reader would essentially have to know our exact title length restrictions and essentially count characters as they type this entire thing out. That all sounds pretty implausible to me. For titles difficult to guess at or otherwise find, I might still say we could keep these as harmless. But someone typing all this out has already typed "Robinson Crusoe" and is probably smart enough to just look there (because if they're going through this whole process at all, they're fairly clever). --BDD (talk) 13:48, 1 September 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.

When is Christmas?[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 20:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a QA site. GZWDer (talk) 05:17, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I wouldn't have "invoked" it if I didn't read it. My comment about "Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not" referring to Wikipedia "as a whole" still stands. Anyone can debate the interpretation of that page in discussion (as apparently, we are doing here). If you want to invalidate any part of WP:WWIN to not apply to specific aspects of Wikipedia, feel free to start a discussion on its talk page. However, it looks like the discussion about specifically restricting WP:NOTFAQ from applying to redirects (on WP:WWIN's talk page) is approaching a WP:SNOW oppose close. Steel1943 (talk) 16:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you had read NOTFAQ, you would have discovered that it's unambiguously inapplicable here, in a way that no one who had read it could miss. There's no need to apply a footnote to it say it doesn't apply to redirects, any more than there's a need to apply a footnote to WP:CSD#G12 saying it doesn't apply to redirects. The substance of what it says makes it entirely unambiguous that it cannot. So, again, I implore you to read NOTFAQ before invoking it. WilyD 09:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ and Steel1943. Not elaborating on each individually as so many have been listed of this type on this date.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - plausible search term, no rationale has been presented for deletion. I'm a little surprised this isn't it's own article yet, though I don't think redlinking to encourage creation is warrented. It'll spin out in it's own time. WilyD 16:38, 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) 17:28, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per unambiguous consensus that redirect titles are encyclopedic content covered by What Wikipedia is not, and pages should not be titled as though Wikipedia is a question-and-answer site. (striking per discussion 15:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)) Were these a combined nomination that was individually relisted? Some of us seem to be repeating the same arguments verbatim. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course, Wikipedia will still answer the question of When is Christmas, we'll just be rude assholes to the readership first. So that argument doesn't seem applicable. WilyD 10:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite having struck my comment, I would prefer not to have been called a "rude asshole", especially when you could have just said "inconsiderate grinch". Then we could have all had a good chuckle. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as unambiguously harmless and unambiguously useful, directly and indirectly (by assisting search engines to answer natural language queries). Regardless of the consensus at that RFC (of which I was unaware), I fail to see how a page that starts "Wikipedia articles should not read like:" could be at reasonably interpreted to refer to anything that is not an article, such as a redirect. "Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not an instruction manual, guidebook, or textbook." also completely fails to have any relevance to redirects that enable people to find the encyclopaedic reference they were looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 23:25, 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.

How old is the Earth?[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 20:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a QA site. GZWDer (talk) 05:08, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I wouldn't have "invoked" it if I didn't read it. My comment about "Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not" referring to Wikipedia "as a whole" still stands. Anyone can debate the interpretation of that page in discussion (as apparently, we are doing here). If you want to invalidate any part of WP:WWIN to not apply to specific aspects of Wikipedia, feel free to start a discussion on its talk page. However, it looks like the discussion about specifically restricting WP:NOTFAQ from applying to redirects (on WP:WWIN's talk page) is approaching a WP:SNOW oppose close. Steel1943 (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you had read NOTFAQ, you would have discovered that it's unambiguously inapplicable here, in a way that no one who had read it could miss. There's no need to apply a footnote to it say it doesn't apply to redirects, any more than there's a need to apply a footnote to WP:CSD#G12 saying it doesn't apply to redirects. The substance of what it says makes it entirely unambiguous that it cannot. So, again, I implore you to read NOTFAQ before invoking it. WilyD 09:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - plausible search term, no argument has been advanced for deletion. WilyD 09:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I've combined these two very similar items, which had near-identical vote breakdowns and discussion. --BDD (talk) 22:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@BDD: You've left my delete !vote in there twice.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 07:12, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@BDD: Actually it appears to be my error, I'm fairly certain, after reviewing the history. I'm going to go ahead and fix it.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 07:19, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per unambiguous consensus that redirect titles are encyclopedic content covered by What Wikipedia is not, and pages should not be titled as though Wikipedia is a question-and-answer site. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC) striking per discussion 15:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia will still answer the question of how the the Earth is, so it'll continue to function exactly as much as a question and answer site as it was before. The only difference is that if we delete this redirect, we'll be treated the readership with contempt. Is that what we want? WilyD 10:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the same reasons I express above at #When is Christmas? - i.e. this unambiguously useful and unambiguously harmless. Thryduulf (talk) 23:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete... it's not useful, unless you want to abandon WP:NOUN as a policy. Questions are not nouns. Si Trew (talk) 13:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:NOUN relates explicitly to article titles, and redirects are not articles (otherwise we'd be at AfD). One of the reasons redirects exist is to enable readers who are not familiar with our titling policies and guidelines to find the content they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 14:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree I think WP:NOUN has applications at RfD. WP:ACRONYMTITLE for example (which the guideline describes and links to for further info): A title like AJAR (African journal) should be avoided if at all possible. If the acronym and the full name are both in common use, both pages should exist, with one redirecting to the other (or as a disambiguation page). I've used that as a rationale for deletion at RfD before, and I interpret its principles to apply to the redirect namespace (meaning that titles like "AJAR (African journal)" shouldn't generally exist even as a redirect). Naming conventions shouldn't be abandoned within this extension (i.e. the redirect namespace) of, if not part of, the article namespace.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:11, 29 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]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 20:04, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is targeted as Physical attractiveness#Female physical attractiveness. Wikipedia is not a pornographic website nor is it a dating site. Mr. Guye (talk) 20:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - seems to direct readers to what they're looking for. Nominator doesn't suggest any action, nor does their statement suggest anything should be done. WilyD 09:10, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per RfD#D5, as this appears a plausible search term. Rubbish computer 11:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A double dose of informal slang. A young bird, especially one newly hatched, having a high degree of heat or a high temperature? Nope. Hot men and Hot women are acceptable perhaps, this isn't.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 06:14, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:01, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - I'm with Godsy's rationale, but I don't think it's all that confusing really, but not all that useful as a redirect either. Stats show that it's being used, though not much. It's probably mostly harmless. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:20, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unlikely in the extreme that a searcher would actually be seeking the scientific analysis of the concept, though I will confess that the "instant karma" aspect of the redirect does have a certain amusement value. But I agree that Wikipedia isn't a dating site, it's not a porn site, it's not Bomis, WP is not a scrapbook (no clue what this search pulls up at Commons) and we don't use this as a navigational category. No search on this term is actually going to bring up any photo of the sort the searcher is probably seeking. Montanabw(talk) 16:19, 25 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]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 20:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Finite module" could mean a module that is finite as a set. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:13, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, keeping the redirect and adding a "see also" sounds like a good solution, assuming the finitely generated module meaning is dominant. mathrick (talk) 11:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 02:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Godsy(TALKCONT) 04:48, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huh? so we want a see also section with a circular redirect?. Si Trew (talk) 13:07, 25 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.

Q word[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. The consensus in this discussion is that we don't like the current target, and we can't agree on a better alternative. Deryck C. 09:54, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get this at all. I suggest retarget to quiet, as there is a notable superstition amongst health care workers against uttering the word "quiet" in a hospital. Which I also don't get, but there you have it. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the last part of "thank" (k) and you? as in "ten Q"? – Paine  11:39, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but I didn't see any results for it. To search, I googled "the q word" (no quotes) and got a page that was only results for the usage I suggested, discounting a couple of links to Scrabble cheating sites which come up in the same spot in search results for any "the [letter] word" search. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:46, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no prominent usage of the term, and it isn't mentioned in any of the suggested targets. -- Tavix (talk) 14:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tavix. --BDD (talk) 22:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:11, 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.

T word[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. Deryck C. 09:55, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know several possible uses of "T word", none are for this target. Laverne Cox created a documentary called "The T-Word" which we haven't written an article about but perhaps could; in the meantime The T-word goes to twat, and so should this. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We don't have Q-word or T-word. As analogues, we have F word as a DAB to which F-word redirects; C word and C-word both → Cunt; S-word → Shit but S word is red. For all of them, WP:NOTDIC is somewhat relevant. Si Trew (talk) 09:36, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the most notable use I can find is "The T Word" a documentary on MTV. It is mentioned at Laverne Cox#Career - "On October 17, 2014 Laverne Cox Presents: The T Word, an hour-long documentary executive-produced and narrated by Cox, premiered on MTV and Logo simultaneously." That (plus a source) is all we have for it though, so whether it merits a retarget or not I'm not sure. Thryduulf (talk) 11:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that myself, but the show doesn't seem to be something which meets the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC threshold, especially because we don't have an article about it. Maybe deleting both of these to encourage creation of an article? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 01:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Things are just too vague. While the most prominent usage of the term is to refer to the slur 'tranny', there's other meanings out there including the specific title of the TV documentary. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. ::I've never heard a transistor radio being referred to as "The T word"; I have no idea what you mean :) The section at DAB Tranny#Society and culture lists Tranny (slang) and under that subheading, several possible meanings. But I would that almost always these expressions are used with the definite article. WP:THE doesn't help much, but perhaps WP:COMMONNAME trumps it. To continue my analogues:
And in addition

Caps forms:

Si Trew (talk) 11:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had gone through these a little while back (A word, B word etc.) and listed several at Rfd (including this one). I didn't add "the" to any of them though. Is it an issue that (for example) F word and The F word have different targets? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:18, 25 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.

Next Greek legislative election[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 1#Next Greek legislative election

Next Spanish general election[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. The result may well be different after the election, however. --BDD (talk) 13:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:ARTICLETITLE. The page has been previously deleted as an implausible redirect. Page has been repeatedly created so requesting WP:SALT. Curb Chain (talk) 00:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • With respect to the Spanish election, though the writ hasn't been dropped I think there are only a handful of extreme scenarios where the election could be any year other than this year (e.g. the potential election period does not spill into 2016). Much as a US Presidential election could, in theory, be moved up under certain narrow circumstances (or the next Olympics cancelled), WP:CRYSTAL doesn't seem applicable w.r.t. the 2015 election. I'd agree if we were talking about the elections after these (which could fall anywhere in the next few years), but the odds of the elections not happening this year seem vanishingly small...so the two labels and the redirect seem appropriate.50.206.51.2 (talk) 04:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my comments above. Thryduulf (talk) 11:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not WP:CRYSTAL, since legally, it is not possible for the election to not be held in 2015 (20 December would be the last possible date to hold it), unless very exceptional unforeseeable circunstamces happen (war, national emergency, whatever). But assuming the election would be moved up into 2016 of further under those circumstances would be WP:CRYSTAL, since those are not foreseeable in the near future. So, unless those do actually happen the election should be treated just as the US presidential elections or the Olympics are, to be held at the date they are legally expected to. Specially given than Rajoy himself has confirmed that the election will be held "by the end of the year", after the 2016 Budget is passed into law in Congress. "Next Spanish general election" should be kept as a redirect to the 2015 election, and once the election is held it would be used for the election after this year's one. Impru20 (talk) 11:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If an election is determined to be in a specific year, it should be titled "Spanish general election, [insert year here]". For example, "Next Spanish general election" was moved to "Spanish general election, 2012" and then "Spanish general election, 2012" was moved to ""Spanish general election, 2011".Curb Chain (talk) 18:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that, in many countries, such as Spain, elections are not determined to be in a specific year. What is determined is the latest possible date the election can be held in the event of no snap election being held earlier. Surely, the one who moved the "Next Spanish general election" article to "Spanish general election, 2012" back when he/she did it shouldn't have done so as per WP:CRYSTAL, since legally the election could have been held in 2011 (as it finally did). In this case, however, we are already in 2015, it is impossible for the election to be held later than 20 December 2015 and Rajoy himself has stated that the election will be held by the end of the year. But the election still has not been held, so it is still the next election, and Wikipedia readers can still search for "Next Spanish general election" in looking for the 2015 election.
Once the election is held, the "Next Spanish general election" article is simply re-used for the next election. Just as it has been done in Wikipedia for many other countries. I see no reason why it should be removed. Impru20 (talk) 19:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So we should have the one page Spanish general election, 2015 without this redirect, since we know in certainty that it will occur this year because referring to "Spanish general election, 2015" is equally ambiguous as a reader from google could think "next" as to any subsequent "Spanish general election". Another note, I don't think these redirects are being used appropriately.Curb Chain (talk) 19:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since the 2015 election has not been held yet and the last election held was the 2011 one, from our current viewpoint, at the present, the 2015 election factually still is the "next" election, that has not changed. The only difference being that we know now that it will be held by the end of 2015. The redirects are also used like this to prevent keeping deleting a page that will be created again after the election is held, anyway. And it does not cause any issues. Unspoken policy regarding election-treatment in Wikipedia has been to act like this (such as UK, Portugal, Ireland, Greece, etc), as, out of the diverse solutions available, it is the more workable and useful. Impru20 (talk) 20:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not understanding this sort of titling of articles. If the election will be held in 2015, then title it Spanish general election, 2015. This prevents confusing. Will there be 2 Spanish general election in 2015? Why not start an article Spanish general election, September 2015 if an upcoming election is held. If another one is held in November, then create Spanish general election, November 2015 when you have the information.Curb Chain (talk) 18:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is already titled Spanish general election, 2015, but the Next Spanish general election article would be re-created anyway once the election is held, but until it is held it will still be the "next" election, despite we knowing the date, until the very day it is held. The official article now is the Spanish general election, 2015.
What you propose, however, would definitely be WP:CRYSTAL. Doing that would assume two elections would be held in 2015 (which, in any case, it is legally impossible to happen as of currently with the current timings), when policy is not show the year, and only to show the month if more than one election happens within the same year. For that to happen, however, the second election would have to be called for the same year after the first one, so you can't guess it will happen before the first one does. It is also uncommon in Spain for two general elections to be held close to each other, so it is not a predictable outcome. User:Thryduulf has a point on this issue. Impru20 (talk) 11:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also check WP:NCGAL, a specific naming convention related to election articles and more specific than WP:TITLE. Impru20 (talk) 11:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:RFD#K5 as this seems useful to the reader: it would not cause much extra work to update these redirects for national elections. Rubbish computer 15:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it's generally not a good idea to create redirects like this. Once the election is over, we'd have to revisit this redirect since it'll be outdated. I wouldn't nominate a redirect like this unless it already is outdated, but since we're already here, it's best to save us the trouble down the line. -- Tavix (talk) 20:52, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except we wont have to revisit it, as it can just be retargetted to wherever mention is made of when the then-next election will be. Also, deleting a redirect that is used, useful, harmless and is pointed at the correct and unambiguous target just because it might not be all of those in future is, at best, cutting of your nose to spite your face. Thryduulf (talk) 23:32, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, it just creates more unnecessary work for us in the future. -- Tavix (talk) 01:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • It does create more work, but enabling readers to find the encyclopaedic content they are looking for is as necessary to Wikipedia as writing the encyclopaedic content in the first place (indeed it is rather pointless to write encyclopaedic content if people can't find it). If you suggested removing content from an article on the grounds that it will be out of date in the future, rather people do the work and it gets updated without fuss or complaint - we even have {{update after}} and {{As of}} to help keep track of this. Thryduulf (talk) 14:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Search terms would help people find what they are looking for just as easy without the maintenance. -- Tavix (talk) 15:40, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, same as the Greek redirect above; editors need to update but it is a plausible search phrase. No WP:CRYSTAL elements, there will always (most likely) be a "next" election, and where the redirect targets a recently passed election, it could also be retargeted to Elections in Spain if lack of updating is a concern. Montanabw(talk) 16:29, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely my point. This redirect isn't plausible since we document what exists. We know elections exist. We know when an election will exist. We don't point readers to what we think will exist.Curb Chain (talk) 18:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What we are doing with redirects such as this is pointing readers to the content they are looking for. We will always know when the next election will be, just to different levels of precision and it is just as valuable and correct to point to "the next election will take place on day month year" as to "the next election will take place on or before day month year", there is no difference in plausibility at all. We are simply pointing to the encyclopaedic distillation of what is said by reliable sources. Thryduulf (talk) 20:41, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We point readers to the "Next" election because we are 100% sure that a next election will happen some day, and even we may be able to know the latest legal possible date it should be held by looking at legal sources. That is, we are certain that the election will be held before a given date, the only thing missing is the specific date, but not the event itself, which will happen anyway. This isn't WP:CRYSTAL at all. Furthermore, there is a convention on how to name future election articles, as per WP:NCGAL: "For future elections of uncertain date, use a form similar to Next Irish general election." There is no issue at all with this title formatting. Impru20 (talk) 11:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Curb Chain, I still don't understand your point. Let's assume the election happens in December this year and an editor creates the article in January 2016 for the next election. What should the article be called? The answer in line with similar election articles would be Next Spanish general election. It would sit at that title until the election was either called or it became impossible to call the election before the last year of the cycle. At that point, the article would move, and Next Spanish general election would become a redirect again. So what exactly is your problem with that? -Rrius (talk) 18:39, 27 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_24&oldid=1138580018"