Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 June 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 30[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 30, 2015.

👯[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 July 9#👯

Disbeliever[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 July 7#Disbeliever

Pain in the arse[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, like its American counterpart. --BDD (talk) 14:05, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alt spelling of Pain in the ass at MfD - see Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_June_30#Pain_in_the ass where suggest this is included. Widefox; talk 20:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Soft redirect to wikt:Pain in the arse, pending someone writing an article about either variation of this idiom. Per previous discussion linked by nom. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentWaitChanged Si Trew (talk) 20:38, 1 July 2015 (UTC). This should go to wherever Pain in the ass goes, as an {{R from alternate spelling}}. British English distinguishes between your behind, and a donkey. When Shakespeare wrote in Twelfth Night, "Methinks I was beloved of an ass", that is a donkey, not a bottom. Si Trew (talk) 02:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Pain in the ass; assuming that becomes an article or disambiguation page -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 05:24, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait for the result at Pain in the ass before proceeding with this one. Honestly, it should have been included in that other rationale for consistency. If ass is soft redirected, so should this one. If an article is created there, this should be retargeted there, etc. -- Tavix (talk) 14:41, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait per Tarvix - We should wait till whatever outcome the other one gets otherwise it's gonna end up getting confusing. –Davey2010Talk 16:14, 1 July 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.

Minister of Social Affairs[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 Withdrawn. WP:BOLDly, I am just going to retarget as Tavix said. (non-admin closure) by Si Trew (talk) 08:17, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No ministers or ministries of Social Affairs are listed thereon. Neither the word "social" nor "affair"(s) appears at the target. WP:RFD#D5 makes no sense, WP:SURPRISE. Si Trew (talk) 19:22, 30 June 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.

Non-Muslim[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, default to keep all. Deryck C. 20:03, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous POV. A kafir (lit. disbeliever) is not necesarily a non-Muslim or even a Muslim depending on context, and not every single faith which is "unislamic" should be tied to Islam here so the opposite argument is not suitable for inclusion. 92slim (talk) 00:06, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 00:51, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No, this is precisely what a kafir is. Quoting from the article: "An Arabic term used in an Islamic doctrinal sense [...] The term refers to a person who rejects or disbelieves in God and the religious truth revealed through the mission of the Islamic Prophet Muhammad". This looks pretty much like a definition of "non-Muslim" to me...--The Theosophist (talk) 05:36, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Whether a Jew or a Christian is a kafir is disputed", so clearly not everyone buys into the idea that non-Muslim = Kafir. Still, we might say "close enough" since the target article explains the varying definitions. --BDD (talk) 17:59, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete kafir means non-muslim, but non-muslim does not mean kafir. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:29, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 17:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm an apathist. Si Trew (talk) 19:06, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think I put this elsewhere and better also, but Unbeliever → Infidel. Si Trew (talk) 00:47, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I am just doing my usual cryptic thingy stuff, but any chance that Unbeliever is a slang for Unilever. I certainly don't believe them when the say that their powder washes "three shades whiter" (an allusion to Fifty Shades of Grey?). My name is not dropped in spectroscopic circles, nor am I a household word where detergent agents foregather, but I am led to believe from those in the know that "shade" is not a standard unit of measure. (sings) I'm an Unmonkee... Si Trew (talk) 00:50, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Redirects don't need to be synonyms, they can be loosely related. In this case it's perfect to have a redirect which helps a reader, unless a better target or a new article is created.--Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 20:37, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well then, Retargert to the DAB at Kaffir. I'm well aware some people can't spell and you are right to point that out, but an R to DAB will do everyone proud. The article at Kafir doesn't xref to this DAB in its hatnote, at the moment. Si Trew (talk) 20:43, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, nothing else there would be referred to as "non-Muslim", even though many things there aren't. I'm sure the wildcat, for example, doesn't give theology much thought. (List of things which are not Muslim, anyone?) --BDD (talk) 16:21, 2 July 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.

Social affairs[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 July 7#Social affairs

Pain in the ass[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 to Wiktionary. We're not really any closer to consensus than when this was relisted, so of the remaining two options, I'm choosing the alternative to deletion. --BDD (talk) 13:49, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We don't redirect pain in the head to headache etc. This sends readers to the medical article Rectal pain with a hatnote to wiktionary! Surely this is WP:SLANG, and deletion and removal of the cross wiki hatnote (which isn't valid) is the correct way per SLANG, NOTHOWTO etc? Widefox; talk 12:59, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as the creator of this redirect, I can assure that there never was a serious reason for its existence. Mikael Häggström (talk) 14:01, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, was thinking the same, wiktionary redirect or salting (as SLANG). Ass pain, Arse pain, Bottom pain are all available for those needing a PITA. Widefox; talk 15:37, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also buttocks pain. Do we have enough pictures in our buttocks article? Just in case our readers don't know what they look like Wbm1058 (talk) 16:16, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they need a wiktionary PITA, this is currently just a WP PITA. Widefox; talk 17:31, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate to annoyance, the current target, and a wiktionary link, and anything else that comes up -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 07:02, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Support disambiguation. We could also include a link to Frustration in the dab, though, from the pictures on that article, it seems pain in the head should redirect there. Wbm1058 (talk) 12:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose disambiguation as we would be disambiguating different "definitions" of the phrase and we don't do that per WP:NOTDIC. If we want to give them a dictionary definition, we should soft redirect it to the Wiktionary entry. Besides, most of these suggestions wouldn't be valid dab entries as "pain in the ass" isn't mentioned in most (all?) of these instances (WP:DABMENTION).-- Tavix (talk) 15:39, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose disambiguation as well - dabs are not meant to serve as catalogues of possible meanings for unencyclopedic epithets. In fact I'm changing my !vote to delete since this is not explained in any articles here, and I oppose soft redirecting as well per WP:NOTDICT. Ivanvector (talk) 15:54, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think WP:NOTDICT says the opposite of what you're suggesting. Check out Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary#Pointers to Wiktionary (there should be a shortcut to this...). The bottom part of that describes this situation perfectly. If we delete it, we are encouraging someone to recreate it sometime down the road, and we don't want that. A soft redirect helps prevent that from happening while offering some information on the subject. Of course, we could delete and salt it, but I just don't think that's helpful. -- Tavix (talk) 18:04, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, you've got a point there. Soft redirect as Tavix suggests. No dab. Ivanvector (talk) 19:14, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose disambiguation - see WP:SLANG / WP:NOTDIC. The use for navigating articles is incorrect due to slang. That aside, we have maybe 1 or 2 articles so fails WP:TWODABS (a wikt link isn't an article). Widefox; talk 17:28, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I have a question for you "NOTDIC" hardliners. See Talk:Right (disambiguation), then explain to me why we should pull "right", that is, the singular form of rights, which is linked to from hundreds of articles, off of primary topic, because of the "NOTDIC" opposite of left (direction). We don't even have an article on the topic. If someone wants to know the meaning of the opposite of left, they can look it up in a dictionary. The only relevant article is relative direction, and having "left", right", "up" and "down" redirects to that topic is only encouraging editors to create WP:OVERLINKS. We could delete all of these redirects, as anyone looking for the encyclopedic topic, as opposed to dictionary definitions, will search on "directions" or something generic of that sort, not a specific direction. So explain to me what I'm not getting here. Wbm1058 (talk) 20:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think WP:DABRELATED would cover this. "Right" is described at Relative direction; whereas "pain in the ass" is not mentioned in any article that has been suggested for a potential dab page. -- Tavix (talk) 21:25, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:WHATABOUTX / WP:OFFTOPIC means I only have to think about PITA (or one PITA at a time). Widefox; talk 22:24, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, then we can just update the lead of rectal pain: "Rectal pain, sometimes colloquially called pain in the ass, pain in the arse, anal pain, pain in the butt, or pain in the buttocks, is the symptom of pain in the area of the rectum. Many people incorrectly refer to any symptom occurring around the anal-rectal area as "hemorrhoids", so that is another colloquial term for rectal pain." Voila, now they're all mentioned in the article. – Wbm1058 (talk) 23:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the point is that "pain in the ass" is not off-topic (the more common "annoyance" meaning is), but rather that the secondary, and more literal, meaning of the term is on-topic. Wbm1058 (talk) 00:11, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(clarify: "Right" is offtopic) As for including the slang/idiom in the lead, we shouldn't per WP:SLANG, doubly so due to WP:MEDRS. Widefox; talk 10:54, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This does have the potential to become an encyclopedic topic. Google Ngrams shows that the term was not in use prior to circa 1930. Who coined the term, and how was it first used? Why did the rate of use increase dramatically after 1960? An encyclopedic article would answer these questions. Wbm1058 (talk) 23:51, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, rather than slang, this may better be called an idiom. We do have many articles on those, see Category:English-language idioms. Again, we could make this a dab until someone writes an article about the primary topic. Examples of idioms which are dabs: Eager beaver, Kill or be killed, Go native and Hot tip. – Wbm1058 (talk) 07:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wbm1058 probably has a point here. The difference, I think, is that all of the dabs here give a brief definition followed by specific examples of title usage (i.e. Eager Beaver Baseball Association, Kill or Be Killed (film), Go Native (company), Hot Tip (film)). We don't have the same sorts of title matches for "pain in the ass", we would instead be listing things which might be considered pains in the ass. Still opposed to disambiguation, but is soft redirect with possibilities a thing? Ivanvector (talk) 22:19, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Idiom or slang aside - whatever the utility of having an article (the idiom or notable slang - wikt says it is both) in WP or a mention in List of English-language idioms, the standard procedure of disambiguation applies - write the article first and after it may be a valid dab entry per WP:MOSDAB / disambiguation (or WP:DABMENTION respectively). Until then, it is not a valid entry in the dab (PITA), and is a Wikt issue. I've added it to the wikt link there.
Regarding the WP:WHATABOUTX dabs: Eager beaver, Kill or be killed, Hot tip Go native are wrecks that I'm fixing. Part of that will be to use wikt links to replace idiom definitions from the intros, images, WP:PTMs per WP:MOSDAB. Widefox; talk 17:09, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There appears to be consensus against keeping or disambiguating, which leaves soft redirecting and deleting as options. Which of those will work better depends on the likelihood that this title could support an article on the idiom.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - soft redirecting is preferable to deletion (WP:PRESERVE), given the lack of strong consensus one way or the other, pending creation of an article if anyone wants to try. Ivanvector (talk) 15:04, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Nobody mentioned Pain in the arse yet. One twonie → Toonie to the quid on where that goes? (No cheating.) Si Trew (talk) 17:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Soft redirecting causes more harm than good. With those, we haven't even a trace of what people actually end up at, and so no way to make our lofty decisions. I note that in my short time here at RfD, almost all soft redirects have been essentially others saying "I can't be bothered to find a better target". Si Trew (talk) 17:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The better target is wikt:Pain in the ass (or wikt:Pain in the arse). We can't hard-redirect to Wiktionary, so soft redirect. Is your "not a trace" argument about stats? The tool keeps stats for soft redirects. ก็็็็็็็็็็็็็ʕ•͡ᴥ•ʔ ก้้้้้้้้้้้ Ivanvector (talk) 17:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My argument was indeed about not having stats on it. I've no doubt you are right or you would not have said so: therefore I follow you. There is a polar bear in the way. Si Trew (talk) 18:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I should have given you an example. So I will: Jesusian - stats. As a bonus, it's a soft redirect to Wiktionary. Ivanvector (talk) 19:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment MfDed Pain in the arse with link to this discussion. Suggest they are both the same, so should be treated the same and included here. Widefox; talk 20:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, they should both be the same per WP:ENGVAR, and it's best to stick our heads out here and let our "arse" follow, I think we are all agreed on that? Si Trew (talk) 08:41, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As there's no article yet, is there a consensus for a soft reirect? Widefox; talk 20:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see so. Si Trew (talk) 08:43, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content
Comment. At interviews I was conducting, I invented an acronym "HITA" to mean "Hole in the air"– a phrase George Orwell used about Neville Chamberlain. So I would ask "Are you a big hitter" as a signal to my partner interviewer that he (invariably a he) was a hole in the air, an oxygen thief. The interview would conclude promptly and politely. Similarly with PITA, one can always happen to have some Greek-style bread handy. Si Trew (talk) 09:42, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the status quo is broken - we have no navigation to the wikt entry which is the current primary meaning. Suggest pragmatic soft redirect for both ENGVARs. Widefox; talk 10:54, 4 July 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.

Miguk[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. There's some disagreement about where to redirect, some consensus for deletion, and search results should allow access to both discussed retargeting options. --BDD (talk) 13:45, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not very sure of what that was meant to be. The Theosophist (talk) 05:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looks like the transcription for some Asian language for the US (is "miguo" in transcibed Chinese, for example). Delete for no special affinity. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 11:14, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RFD#D8 as this is an obscure synonym without significant use. -- Tavix (talk) 19:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Gook per Lenticel. That's a better solution than deletion. -- Tavix (talk) 15:58, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as a redirect from non-English. Mangoe (talk) 17:19, 1 July 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.

Integrity (mathematics)[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, default to delete. That's not a result I generally use, but in this case, there's not consensus to keep as is, the term "integrity" isn't used at either Integer or Integral domain, and there are no mathematical uses listed at Integrity (disambiguation). --BDD (talk) 13:38, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No-brainer retarget to Integer. The Theosophist (talk) 05:03, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I don't see any instances of using "integrity" to mean (numerical) integer-ness. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 11:17, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A commutative ring having at least two elements and bereft of divisors of zero is called an integer ring (or an integrity domain).<ref>Ioan Purdea, Gheorghe Pic, ''Tratat de algebră modernă'', Vol. 1, Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste România, București, 1977, p. 219</ref> Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:09, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Should this target to integral domain then? Ivanvector (talk) 15:20, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Integrity (disambiguation). I have thought about this time and again since it was listed, but have really not come to much conclusion. "Integral" should, linguistically, be the adjective for something that is an integer, but whenever I have used it in mathematical discussions (in real life, and my maths is limited mainly to symbolic logic and stuff like that, and still have to kinda draw pictures for anything more complicated than subtending the angle A) then it is genuinely confusing to people who assume I mean integration (mathematics) → Integral.
The ref that User talk:Tgeorgescu gives is of little relevance to an English-speaking audience. Assuming as I do that mathematics is kinda the nearest thing one gets to truth, in the sense that once an axiom is proven then it is proven forever, then I am sure it is a good book: but not helpful. The sticking point is how to disambiguate the various English language derivations of the word "integer" (integral, integrity, integration, and so on).
They may be differentiated (linguistically differentiated: not differentiation (mathematics) → Derivative) in Romanian, which has the usual Latinate rules, but are ambiguous in English (the title in Romanian I presume is Modern Treatise on Algebra or Treatise on Modern Algebra, that doesn't take a lot of doing except to know which is modern, the algebra or the treatise: that is a similar kind of ambiguity we have with this redirect in English).
If as I suggest it is retargeted to the DAB, we can add a section "Mathematics" and fill in many of the good suggestions and others found here. My reason for not saying an outright delete, is that I can imagine sciency or mathematicky people with some knowledge having a clue to type "Integrity (mathematics)" to get a specific DAB on its various meanings in various mathematical fields: that would be the perfect solution, but let's do it at the main DAB first, then split it out later, if we need to (WP:NOTFINISHED). Si Trew (talk)
  • I'm going to go out on a limb and say retarget to Integral domain, based on Tgeorgescu's description matching the lede of that article. To Si's point: the "integer" and variations in this context refer to integer (a whole number) and not to integration (mathematics) which is definitely a distinct mathematical concept; let's not confuse them. I'm no expert but I have done some university-level calculus. Integrity, I believe (if I understand correctly), refers to the property of being (or not being) an integer, and is not related to integration/differentiation at all. As for commutative rings, that's beyond my knowledge. Ivanvector (talk) 17:49, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not happy with that, @Ivanvector:. Perhaps my modesty was too much. I know a commutative ring when I see one, if you've ever wired a ring circuit it is pretty much the same, only you have volts and amps instead of tokens running around arcs in graph theory. One might as well throw it at Modulo arithmetic for that matter, or at least Modulus. Si Trew (talk) 19:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My modesty prevailed as usual. I worked for eighteen months doing the stuff your mobile phone works with, at the back end, with oscilloscopes and stuff, so I am well aware of what an IQ domain is, which is essentially on the scope you put Q on the vertical axis and I on the horizontal axis, as complex numbers, and you get a lovely pattern. (Described at In-phase and quadrature components, which is why it is I and Q.) And it's hard to describe but mathematicians kinda think like that. Ask them to make change out of a fiver and they can't, but give them 6i3q and they can immediately imagine it. I just have Stroud, Ken (1988). Engineering Mathematics (3rd ed.). Si Trew (talk) 20:53, 1 July 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.

GeorgeHamiltonGordonAberdeen[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 as {{R from CamelCase}}. There is some disagreement as to whether this is the most appropriate primary topic for the title, but there's no consensus to change it for now. Deryck C. 19:57, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible. The Theosophist (talk) 09:45, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Si, WP:NCBRITPEER says we do use titles in most cases. I might be more upset with this if there weren't so many names in common that need WP:NATURAL disambiguation anyway. --BDD (talk) 13:30, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I take that back: it's the obvious way to disambiguate. What I was floundering towards is that WP:COMMONNAME is still in play, so that is still at Elizabeth II (to disambiguate from Elizabeth I but not at Dei Gratia Regina Fidei Defensor Elizabeth Secondus for example, even though that's how it appears (abbreviated) on every British (and Canadian) coin. (Also oddly, to me – and I am no monarchist – HMQ as an abbreviation for "Her Majesty the Queen" is red, and HMK → a contested GNG stub at Hindu Makkal Katchi). Si Trew (talk) 13:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That would only make sense ifHer Majesty The Queen existed, which it does ( → Style_of_the_British_sovereign, as does His Majesty The King. I am your wery umble servant, Si Trew (talk) 17:43, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Should we keep the redirect, or retarget it to DAB George Hamilton Gordon?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 09:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do I hear the sound of a vermic tin-can opener? Lord Aberdeen and Earl Aberdeen both → Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair, where the lede mentions that that title was created for John Hamilton-Gordon, 7th Earl of Aberdeen. Yet I would have thought "Lord Aberdeen" would be WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the sometime Prime Minister (and "Earl Aberdeen" likewise, does an Earl trump a Lord and a Marquess trump both, I am never sure?). I think we should follow the lines of BDD's reasoning, wherever that leads us. Si Trew (talk) 13:44, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I may be in over my head here; I don't know the British peerage system this well. Does it make sense for the Earldom of Aberdeeen to be discussed on a page nominally about a marquess...ship(?)? Especially since it looks like there were at least seven Earls of Aberdeen before the newer title was created. (Side note: I may never see "marquess" without thinking it's a feminine title first.) I'll check with our local experts to see if they can weigh in here. --BDD (talk) 14:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So Progress is a feminine thing, then, since the male thing would be a Prog? Marionette is probably weirdist like that, linguistically: but then "ette" is not so much feminine as diminutives (translators into English have great trouble with this, with languages that have that distinction: "little darling" and so on from Russian language, so Little Nell would be roughly Nellette or something like that, back translated. It is not so much feminine, the "-ette", as diminutive, but has come kinda to mean so in English: Cosette is not a small Cos, but casette is a small case. Si Trew (talk) 16:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
An Earl is a Lord kinda by "inheritance" in the object oriented sense (I don't mean in the sense that he inherits his title, but that earls are subsets of lords, almost anyone is a lord, but only some are earls). Marquesses are kinda really hoi polloi as far as the aristocracy goes, and no, the feminine is Marquess (and various others as cognates), not to be confused with her husband the marquis' homophonic cognate marquee (DAB), though some of them wear blouses big enough that the mistake with a marquee (tent) is easy to make. With me so far? Peerage of the United Kingdom will put you into your misery. Si Trew (talk) 16:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Entirely irrelevant. Ivanvector (talk) 17:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not entirely irrelvant comment, but nearly so. I just realised "homophonic" and "homophobic" are just one tiny slip away on a QWERTY (and an Hungarian QWERTZ that I use, and a Belgian AZERTY that I use when translating French). We better be en guarde for that, just as typos and all that, if they come up here. Homophone and Homophobe similarly. DOI: I'm not gay, I'm an unhappily married man.wife made me strike that Si Trew (talk) 16:15, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you don't mind that I've hatted this, as it is in fact entirely off-topic, and filling these threads with off-topic cruft makes some people unreasonably angry for whatever reason. There is a "not to be confused" hatnote at homophone which suggests homophobe, but not the reverse. That's about the best we could do, if this were to come up. Ivanvector (talk) 17:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Quite right for you to do so, but I drop a lot of things I mean to kinda sort out even though I do have pen and paper and a list of things to sort out, so occasionally I just knock em in, on the understanding that people like you will know they are kinda meaningless but not harmful. My mind just shoots off in a million directions at the same time, and I don't take any drugs beyond cigarettes and booze, that is SCARY to think what it might be like if I took the hard stuff. I bet it would be brilliant: Once. Then it would be awful: Forever. Si Trew (talk) 02:24, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. @BDD: is it good form to continue a discussion after relisting, in the bit before the relisting? (You started so I continued.) I know in theory the dates should pick it all out, but I tend to kinda draw a line under it when the line is drawn for relisting. Similarly, I tend to regard any !vote I have made before the relisting as not requiring me explicitly to strike it if I change my mind. What would be your (and others') opinion on it? This is a bit off-topic of course and better for the talk page, but I mention it here first. It came to my notice because WP's notification said that BDD had pinged me but I couldn't see any such comment below the relisting line. Si Trew (talk) 14:03, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think it's fine to let the timestamps speak for themselves. And a good closer should notice if you have two votes, but I think it's always best practice to strike an older one. --BDD (talk) 14:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@BDD: I'll go along with that, at least I know where I stand. I think this comment and our replies should be moved out of here to WT:RFD: I'm happy to do it but happy for you to, saving you replying here. Si Trew (talk) 16:00, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with the current target, for consistency and agreement with George Hamilton Gordon Aberdeen, pending a new discussion about the proper target for all of the Aberdeen redirects mentioned here. Personally I think we should go with status quo unless and until experts on peerage weigh in, because we're clearly just guessing. Ivanvector (talk) 15:10, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. Typical. I put in the Queen, BDD follows with the King, but User:Ivanvector trumps: to which I submissively agree. I did actually look for {{WikiProject Monarchy}} and so on but couldn't find anything where we could ping them: What do you have? Si Trew (talk) 08:53, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Watch out for that left bower. You could try WikiProject Royalty and Nobility or WikiProject British Royalty. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:53, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@BDD: , @Ivanvector: I see that you to asked for a “Peerage expert”. I claim to be one but the above discussion is a bit TL;DR. Can you pose the question again? I think I figured tht it has to do with Marquesses...--The Theosophist (talk) 21:02, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are some other questions, but the main one I was getting at: Does it make sense for Lord Aberdeen and Earl Aberdeen to Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair, when the latter is a newer style? Surely Earl of Aberdeen and Marquess of Aberdeen can't be synonymous. --BDD (talk) 15:38, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@BDD: The 7th Earl of Aberdeen was created 1st Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair. This way, you can say that the two titles merged, as they were held by the same person. Male descendants of the first Marquess still live today, thus the two titles are still united (the current holder is the 13th Earl and 7th Marquess, for your information). It is the established policy every time this has happened, to redirect the old title to the new one (see, for example, Earl of Kildare and Earl of Rutland), as the two titles are held by the same person and family. In fact, the new title can be considered the continuation of family legacy or even an upgrade (which is not the actual case, as both titles exist independently), as the head of the family is now a Marquess, so you cannot say that they are two completely different subjects: the article deals with the title of the family at any given time and has the current one as its title. After all, they hold the old title too. Had it changed hands on the creation of the new (or had the new been created for a second son) there would most likely be separate articles. --The Theosophist (talk) 21:37, 4 July 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.

Unavailable[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 Unavailability. --BDD (talk) 13:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I'm WP:SURPRISEd that it goes where it does (WP:RFD#D2 confusing). Also fails WP:NOUN (it's an adjective) and is an WP:ORPHAN (though of course that does not rule it out as a redirect, but is perhaps indicative): nothing links there (except things related to this discussion) though stats say it gets hits above noise level (about three a day on average, with a spike to 23 on 14 May, for some reason). It is quite old, though (2009).

We could retarget it as {{R from opposite}} to Availability, which is what the R Available targets.

Or as a more-specific target about telephony, we do have Busy signal (to which Br. Eng. Engaged tone redirects) but I think there is (or was before voicemail etc.) a distinction between the line being in use, and it being unavailable due to a fault, been disconnected, nonexistent number, etc. Line unavailable, Unavailable tone and Unavailable signal, Unavailable message are all red. Si Trew (talk) 06:52, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unobtainable tone (the usual phrase in the U.K.) and Unobtainable signal are also red. Si Trew (talk) 13:10, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Busy tone → Busy signal — adding only for completeness, nothing wrong with it. Si Trew (talk) 13:51, 30 June 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_June_30&oldid=1037879491"