Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 1[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 1, 2016.

Fight Club (book vs. 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. --BDD (talk) 15:10, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

redirect that serves no purpose but conflates two articles (book and film) Widefox; talk 23:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It's part of the history of the target article. The history shows that there was a debate about a comparisons section that was eventually turned content moved ... well, I haven't been able to fully trace it yet. But wherever the content ended up, we shouldn't be making it even harder for future editors to unpuzzle it by deleting unharmful redirects and the history they contain. Rossami (talk) 04:56, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as misleading since it implies a comparison between the book and film, which we don't have. This is also a classic WP:XY situation and we can't retarget to both Fight Club (film) and Fight Club (novel). -- Tavix (talk) 05:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, it is exactly XY. I wasn't even aware of WP:XY. We do have much rule-ness. Widefox; talk 22:37, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this was a content split from Fight Club starting with this revision 7 Sep 2006, and was merged back in this revision, four days later. It was always comparing the film to the book and always belonged in the film article, if anywhere. It was eventually trimmed out but it lasted quite some time, I haven't found where it was actually finally removed. I don't think a history merge is possible. However, since none of the short-lived comparison article's content is currently being used anywhere, I think it's safe to delete in terms of attribution. The content was built in the film article (and that history survives) and there were only a handful of edits to the comparison article anyway. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the WP:XY problem, as pointed out above CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:26, 3 February 2016 (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.

Fuck in different languages[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 15:10, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as misleading, because of the implication that there is a translation list somewhere on the page, when there isn't, nor should there be per WP:NOTDIC. There is a few foreign-language words in the etymology, but they are to show the evolution of the word; they aren't necessarily 1:1 translations. -- Tavix (talk) 23:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as redirect per old AfD decision. Rossami (talk) 05:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. The AfD showed no consensus for redirecting anyway; that was merely a unilateral action by the closer. Even if there were consensus, it's been 10 years, and Wikipedia:Consensus can change. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 06:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete wikipedia does not and should not provide the answer to that search string. Legacypac (talk) 06:55, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a translation service. Furthermore there is no list of same-meaning foreign-language epithets on the page, so readers searching for this will be disappointed. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:NOT - WP:DICT or translation service. Widefox; talk 22:40, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the opinions expressed above. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:43, 4 February 2016 (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.

More equal[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 14:57, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this is likely to astonish. "More equal" is usually used in terms of equality (eg: after the Civil Rights Movement, blacks became more equal). I could see this vaguely referring to Primus inter pares, probably from a critical viewpoint. Thoughts? -- Tavix (talk) 21:54, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - it's just as likely as a reference to Animal Farm, I think, wherein the pigs espoused equality for all of the animals, but also proposed that they were more equal than the others. I think it's more of an allusion to benign dictatorship, but then again I'm not a literary critic. It's vague, I wouldn't be sad if this were made more deleted. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:08, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's definitely a reference to Animal Farm, although it's only part of it. The full quote is: "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." Several non-vague variants of that quote redirect there, and I'm fine with all of them but this one. -- Tavix (talk) 22:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That being said, I would have thought its current target is the most likely: but then, anyone knowing that derivation is more than equal to the task of searching for "Animal Farm", and anyone not knowing it can find out from a search, where currently Animal Farm sits as the fourth result (I don't know how much that is influenced by the redirect's presence). We don't have more-equal, fortunately. Si Trew (talk) 04:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For weak search topics like this, a wikipedia redirect+mirrors heavily influences Google results. Legacypac (talk) 06:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but I meant a Wikipedia Special:Search; I didn't make that clear. Si Trew (talk) 04:00, 3 February 2016 (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.

3pac[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 14:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, aside from name similarity, 3pac has nothing to do with Tupac Shakur. 3pac was the pseudonym of YouTube rapper Ryan James Harryman. Here's his Know Your Meme. He's notable in the meme world for his feud with Eminem and rapping about Ebola. He ended up dying from a Water Polo incident a few months back and made the news. [1] [2] I think an article can be written about him and I'm pretty sure that someone searching for "3pac" is looking for an article about Harryman and not about Tupac Shakur. Therefore, this should be redlinked to show that we have no information about 3pac. -- Tavix (talk) 21:38, 1 February 2016 (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 Hubert Humphrey School of Public 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 no consensus. --BDD (talk) 16:35, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • And the other 22 found here [3] incorporated by reference.
    23 redirects to this target by Neelix in a row seems like way too many - kind of beating it to death while introducing erroneous versions of the name into the wild. I've not nominated the school's long form name (with and with out The). Legacypac (talk) 01:33, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment does the school use or once use these names, or does the public? -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 05:24, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • School goes by Humphrey School of Public Affairs (the article title, not part of the nom IP 70), or Humphrey School with a website of https://www.hhh.umn.edu/ Legacypac (talk) 05:56, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete all those with "Policy" in the title. The school is not entitled with "Policy", and "policy" is only mentioned once in the article, in the WP:FIRSTSENTENCE. No opinion (yet) on the others. Si Trew (talk) 07:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. They are not obviously wrong or confusing to readers and there is no reason to bloat the database with unnecessary deletion transactions.
    Having said that, Si Trew, would you please elaborate on why you believe that the school is not entitled to include "policy"? Public Affairs and Public Policy are synonyms, are they not? Rossami (talk) 05:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did not say they were not entitled to include "policy"; I said that the school is not entitled with "Policy"; i.e. that "Policy" is not part of their title. So it is WP:RFD#D5 nonsense to call it something which it is not called. Si Trew (talk) 04:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Deletions are simple and don't bloat the database. Incorrect names spread over the internet from Wikipedia. They make the right information harder to find by presenting a confusing array of options, which is the opposite of what redirects are supposed ro do. Legacypac (talk) 07:58, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sorry, Legacypac, but that is not true. Deletions do in fact add to the database. Granted, it's a small bloat (and considerably less than the debate we're having about it) but unless the redirect is harmful, they're unnecessary. Re: incorrect names - that is not a valid reason to delete a redirect. All redirects are "incorrect" by definition. If that were the right title for the page, that's where we'd put the main article. Furthermore, redirects are generally (though not always) suppressed by the websites that clone and/or scrape Wikipedia. And even the patently "wrong" redirects immediately take the reader to the "right" title. That is exactly what they're supposed to do. Rossami (talk) 03:50, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect names absolutely spread error on the internet. See [4] which took 2 seconds to spot on the Neelix list. See the discussion here [5] and especially comments by User:Sphilbrick about the lack of damage deletion does. Legacypac (talk) 05:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 21:25, 1 February 2016 (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.

Tupac Shakur Tattoos[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 14:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as misleading, since the article doesn't mention anything about tattoos. -- Tavix (talk) 21:24, 1 February 2016 (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.

Young Women's Christian Association Women of Distinction Awards[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 15:38, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As the article on YWCA says, they no longer use the old long name. They stopped long before the WOD awards were started in Canada. These redirects are just part of the Neelix redirect nonsense around Tara Teng (she was once nominated for the Vancouver version of the YWCA award). They are misleading and overkill. Legacypac (talk) 01:13, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all, there should not be any links or redirects to the "Women of Disticntion" award. This is just Neelix COI spam. Softlavender (talk) 01:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep all. Directs people to where they should go (as far as I can tell), and are all R's to section discussing it (I've added the section links in the nom, above). If the root of this is the Women of Distinction redirect (to same place) then we should tackle that: but that's not under discussion here (not even by reference). Si Trew (talk) 07:39, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh there are a bunch more redirects by Neelix along these lines [[7]]. I just picked out the Young Women's Christian Association ones for the reasons above as the silliest ones. Legacypac (talk) 08:24, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not all in that list are by Neelix. For example, Agnes Blizzard was created by yourself in December 2015, even though its only use is in the target. Si Trew (talk) 13:16, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Never said they were all by Neelix, but the YWCA WOD ones are all his. Blizzard founded YWCA Canada. Legacypac (talk) 13:19, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 21:22, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom "no longer use the old long name. They stopped long before the WOD awards were started in Canada." I don't see why we direct an award-name that seems like a non-obvious search-phrase to an award that has never existed. DMacks (talk) 14:07, 3 February 2016 (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.

NAPCHT[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. Despite unambiguous, these abbreviations seem to be invented by the redirect creator and the redirects aren't being used by anybody. Deryck C. 22:36, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Part of Neelix's walled garden to promote anything Tara Teng got near. This abbreviation is not correct. National Action Plans are fairly common and get abbreviated as NAP-xxx Legacypac (talk) 00:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. NAP-CHT foes to the same target, and this is just {{R from incorrect punctuation}}. Si Trew (talk) 07:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. On the one hand, I can't think of anything else these initials could point to. On the other hand, even Acronym Finder doesn't have them listed. Nor does Google return any non-Wikipedia-based hits (well, except for the chat group about napping). That leads me to conclude that this and the hyphenated variant are neologisms. Rossami (talk) 05:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've added NAP-CHT to this nom. My research confirms that Neelix appears to have made these up, and given that sex trafficking is a favorite advocacy topic of his and he has invented dozens of other sets of initials, it is quite likely these are made up to. I'm taking it out of the article as unsubstantiated. We should delete these as Wikipedia is not the place to coin new terms. Legacypac (talk) 05:59, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the first as an obvious, unambiguous acronym. Weak delete the second, since hyphens aren't typically included in acronyms. --BDD (talk) 16:05, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 21:22, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep NAPCHT and delete NAP-CHT as the former is a plausible search term CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Is there any evidence at all that this acronym is actually used? If not, no matter how plausible it is, it's a neologism. And even by the loose standards we follow for redirects, that's a step too far. Rossami (talk) 05:44, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I could only find one use in a parliamentary record of one of these being used, and that was not official. It sure appears Neelix invented these, like so many other new words and acronyms. Legacypac (talk) 08:26, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Upon more thought, I agree to just go ahead and delete NAPCHT, particularly given how unlikely it is to be ever used and isn't used now (except here). CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:11, 11 February 2016 (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.

Wikipedia:UT[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. Deryck C. 15:00, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

This redirect has been retargeted a few times in the past, because the pages it previously redirected to either no longer exist or are no linger relevant. I recently used this, assuming it would go to something regarding User Talk pages, but instead it goes to a WikiProject that has been inactive for several years. There are only a few incoming links so cleanup after retargeting would not be overly cumbersome. The main question is exactly where to point it now? Beeblebrox (talk) 19:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as not needed and a surprise. Legacypac (talk) 19:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to WP:TP or disambiguate if there are other potentially expected targets. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Wikipedia:WikiProject Utah - I was going to say keep per WP:IFITAINTBROKE but looking into this it seems it's more broken then it appears on the surface. I was wondering if this would make sense as a redirect to Wikipedia:WikiProject Utah, and then discovered that project is currently using WP:UTA, which surprised me. We have UT = University of Texas at Austin, and UTA = Utah. It's backwards. The former target (see previous RfD) is no longer valid, it was merged into a different project several years ago. Therefore I think retargeting to the active WikiProject Utah is the correct action. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(after ec) I also oppose creating a dab page for this. We don't normally do dabs in project space, and especially not for pseudospace shortcuts. If there are competing usages, the standard course of action is hatnotes. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:47, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's a good point. I've retracted my opposition to dabbing; I don't support it per se but it would be fine. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:34, 2 February 2016 (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.

Super hard[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) sst✈(conjugate) 03:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also include Super-hard and Superhard These seem super vague. Math is super hard and so are plenty of other things like climbing Everest. Neelix inventions. Declined at CSD so bringing for discussion. Legacypac (talk) 18:50, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - this is shorthand for material engineering nomenclature. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Is that true? I realise this is subjective, but I worked in materials science for several years and can't recall ever hearing of a material being called "a super hard" on it own (in the way we may call the cue ball in snooker just "the white" and not "the white ball"), or a superconducting material a "superconductor"). I'm inclined to think this is confusing, but my gsearch seems to suggest the term is more commonly used to describe an erection, and while WP:NOTCENSORED the term is not at that target and I feel a retarget there could be an unwanted WP:SURPRISE; but then, retargeting it to the current target is perhaps a surprise for those wanting information about erections . Si Trew (talk) 05:07, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the few university courses I did in materials engineering, "superhard" is certainly a descriptor for materials exceeding a certain hardness (the article defines it), and within the context of the course we did refer to them as "superhards" at times. That might be overly specific context, but I think probably safe. As for your Google search, internet results for things which may be pornographic terms are often very badly skewed toward the pornographic use rather than the real picture, so I would tend to discount that finding. Besides, in that context, "super hard" is entirely subjective. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:40, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While "super hard" can sometimes be idiomatic for "very difficult", it is a term of art in materials science. No one needs a link to explain "very difficult" but a link to the materials page will be very helpful when that's the context. Rossami (talk) 05:11, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above. Without prejudice I've marked them as {{R from adjective}}, and tagged and added the two others mentioned to the nom. Si Trew (talk) 02:53, 4 February 2016 (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.

Volkswagen T2[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 all. Deryck C. 14:58, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Volkswagen T2a
  2. Volkswagen T2b
  3. Volkswagen Type 2 (T2a)
  4. Volkswagen Type 2 (T2b)
  5. Volkswagen T2 Microbus
  6. Volkswagen T2a Microbus
  7. Volkswagen T2b Microbus
  8. Volkswagen T2 Minibus
  9. Volkswagen T2a Minibus
  10. Volkswagen T2b Minibus
  11. Volkswagen T2 Kombi
  12. Volkswagen T2a Kombi
  13. Volkswagen T2b Kombi
  14. Volkswagen V2 Microbuses
  15. Volkswagen T2 Microbuses
  16. Volkswagen T2a Microbuses
  17. Volkswagen T2b Microbuses
  18. Volkswagen T2 Minibuses
  19. Volkswagen T2a Minibuses
  20. Volkswagen T2b Minibuses
  21. Volkswagen T2 Kombis
  22. Volkswagen T2a Kombis
  23. Volkswagen T2b Kombis

I'm not an expert on this van. Do these redirects all make sense? They all target the same subsection of the article. Legacypac (talk) 18:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This may be the "exception that proves the rule". These vehicles were indeed known by a variety of names around the world. The plural ones are a bit silly, I could see zapping those, but the singular ones are pretty much accurate. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:18, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep everything from Volkswagen T2b Kombi and up as valid synonyms (per Beeblebrox), delete the rest as unnecessary pluralizations which pollute search results. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:54, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • See RFD#KEEP 7. Redirects for pluralization are not merely allowed but often encouraged. They do not "pollute" search results. Rossami (talk) 05:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think you mean WP:RFD#K6, keep 7 refers to something else. I'll give you that one, it is true that we used to recommend that plural redirects should be created. I disagree with that advice as I think it's counterproductive to have 23 slight modification redirects to one topic, but it's community advice nonetheless. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, consensus can change; we also used to have advice for adding {{R from other capitalization}}s, and I think there's still advice for adding {{R to diacritics}} (which doesn't seem necessary any more, although I don't know what collation order WP uses for its search). I can see the point in adding redirects for plurals that don't form in the basic +s or +es way (e.g. Greek or Latin plurals) but, ad abserdem, it would mean having a redirect for every article title that is a common noun. Perhaps we should start a thread (at [[Talk:Redirect}}?) about deciding if this is still consensus. Not to delete existing ones, but not to encourage creation of new ones. Si Trew (talk) 04:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • My error. I did mean #K6. Apparently I need to get my glasses checked. I don't think it's appropriate to change that advice, however. It has nothing to do with search and everything to do with capturing the links created by editors who don't know that you can link with word-fragments (like a trailing s) outside the brackets. Letting those links turn red frustrates new users and results in the creation of unnecessary duplicate articles. Rossami (talk) 05:51, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - These vehicles do have a large amount of confusingly different names. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:40, 3 February 2016 (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.

Fuckingly[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 Beeblebrox (talk) 20:22, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

How do people feel about this batch of Neelix redirects? I'm good with trashing them as this is not the Urban Dictionary. Legacypac (talk) 18:31, 1 February 2016 (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.

Unlawful possession of ammunitions[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 both. In the latter part of the discussion, it has been shown that the double error of *ammunitions → munitions → weapon is so much that it is not in the best interest of the reader to keep these redirects. Deryck C. 14:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These were speedy deleted as part of the Neelix cleanup, but now restored at the request of an editor. Sending for full discussion at RfD They are grammatically incorrect to start with. Legacypac (talk) 22:34, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep. As I pointed out in the request to which Legacypac refers, these are plausible misreadings of phrases like "Illegal possession of munitions", which is a recognized, contemporary criminal offense. (See, e.g., [2], [3], [4].) "Munitions" is a less common word than "ammunition", and the misuse is quite plausible. It's one thing to scour Neelix's hordes of synonyms for "hooters" from Wikipedia; it's quite another to indiscriminately remove anything he might have written without properly checking its appropriateness. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by admins since 2006. (talk) 23:03, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep both - no policy-compliant rationale for deletion has been presented. "They are grammatically incorrect to start with." is not a justification; many redirects are from typos, grammatical errors etc. and that is just fine. Redirects are cheap and are there to help readers find the information they are seeking. Plausible search terms. WP:RFD#HARMFUl describes our policy. Just Chilling (talk) 00:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both as plausible search terms. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ammunition is not equal to weapon. Legacypac (talk) 03:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:21, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ammunition can be considered as a weapon in some jurisdictions, just as can, say, a projectile such as an egg: but then we don't have Illegal possession of an egg. Whether something is a weapon is often a question of criminal intent (e.g. is a knife a weapon?), and a question put to the jury; it's not the possession but the (intended) use that makes it a weapon (and we don't have Criminal use of an egg either).
I think the previous argument was largely about sending the more-general "possession" to the more-specific "criminal possession"; not about sending a more-specific weapon to a more-general one. It's better to split those two arguments out. Si Trew (talk) 05:15, 2 February 2016 (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.

Exoticisations[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 Beeblebrox (talk) 20:07, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No way these words or made up words all refer to this target primarily. Legacypac (talk) 18:17, 1 February 2016 (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.

Exotical[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 Beeblebrox (talk) 20:07, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense I think. Legacypac (talk) 18:25, 1 February 2016 (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 Apprentice 15[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 by nominator, Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 22:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Appears implausible, recently created: would be interested in opinions on this. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 18:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, probably. It's supposedly also known as "The Apprentice 15", and that title is not ambiguous with any other show as far as I know. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The term is in the first sentence as Also known as. Correct? Don't know. Legacypac (talk) 18:28, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I added this redirect due to the wording of the article's first sentence. Also, I watch this program regularly and have heard other viewers refer to the show as The Apprentice #. Lord Laitinen (talk) (requests) 22:29, 1 February 2016 (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.

Masterbates[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 split. I find consensus to delete "masterbational" and "masterbationally" but no consensus for the grammatical variants "masterbates", "masterbated" and "masterbatory". Arguments in violation of Wikipedia policy were discounted. Rossami (talk) 00:17, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These are all misspelled AND stupid. Legacypac (talk) 17:57, 1 February 2016 (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.

Masturbational[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 Beeblebrox (talk) 19:38, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These represent Neelix playing with words - not good search terms. Legacypac (talk) 18:03, 1 February 2016 (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.

Wankstain[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 Beeblebrox (talk) 19:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, honestly, these are getting rejected for speedy deletion? What the actual fuck? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:48, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did not submit for speedy because even more stupid terms do get rejected at CSD and because there is still a post at the top of ANi slamming me about my supposed vendetta against Neelix so the community can look at this stuff and form a consensus. These show we are not done the cleanup yet cause his wank stains remain all over the project. Legacypac (talk) 18:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is ridiculous. Someone pull the trigger on these, please. What a waste of our time. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:06, 1 February 2016 (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.

Cut up[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 Beeblebrox (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These look like nonsense, sending a common English phrase at a special technique most people have never heard of. Even Cut up is not meaningful in this context without the word technique, except within a discussion of the technique. Legacypac (talk) 17:27, 1 February 2016 (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.

Fish bowling[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 Beeblebrox (talk) 19:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Makes no sense to me, Legacypac (talk) 17:24, 1 February 2016 (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.

Aquaristical[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 Beeblebrox (talk) 19:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neelix word play Legacypac (talk) 17:23, 1 February 2016 (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.

Chokeholder[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 Beeblebrox (talk) 19:55, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is the purpose of these Neelix wordplay redirects? When rarely used they refer to figurative holding of something mobilized, like the government or a drug caertel, not the target. Legacypac (talk) 17:01, 1 February 2016 (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.

Christmas shops[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. An actual article on the idea of a Christmas shop would be an improvement, however. --BDD (talk) 16:44, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a store(s) that sells Christmas stuff. Better target? Legacypac (talk) 23:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as inaccurate and misleading. Softlavender (talk) 23:50, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Christmas market is closer. That article currently implies that all such markets are transient - a statement that I think is not true but will have to research before correcting. Either way, it's less bad than the "economics of" page. But even the "economics of" page is better than a redlink. Rossami (talk) 05:35, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I believe these were created as variations of "Christmas shopping" which also redirects there. I don't think the current target is "bad," you'd learn about Christmas shops there, though it's certainly not perfect. I think the status quo is better than Christmas market, since that article deals with a German tradition. -- Tavix (talk) 14:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting history on Christmas shopping: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christmas_shopping&action=history Neelix targeted that page to Economics of Christmas too at I believe the same time, which gives me no confidence that it is a good precedent for these two. Legacypac (talk) 20:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:56, 1 February 2016 (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.

Ignacio Polanco[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 procedural close. Thanks to Ivanvector for starting an article. --BDD (talk) 20:27, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia:Soft redirect: "Soft redirects to non-English language editions of Wikipedia should be avoided because they will generally be unhelpful to English-language readers." Fram (talk) 15:47, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW I agree - foreign-language soft redirects are generally unhelpful. and possibly harmful assuming a reader of English Wikipedia reads only English. But roughly machine translating these is sometimes a better option, if they're notable topics. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:23, 1 February 2016 (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.

Socio-technically[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 weak consensus to do so, and no agreement on where the terms could best point. If they're reestablished, as redirects or dabs, it might be easier to have a "clean" discussion on them, without the Neelix context. --BDD (talk) 16:43, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest a soft redirect to https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sociotechnically Not sure how to do this. Legacypac (talk) 03:22, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Social engineering (political science), where sociotechnician and socio-technician go. Although considering the listing below, perhaps they shouldn't, but instead to sociotechnical system (i.e. essentially switching the targets of these two redirects and the two below). Si Trew (talk) 11:38, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on the other hand, Sociotechnics and Socio-technics, and their singulars, all → Social engineering, a TWODABS with (political science) and (security) as entries. These were all created on 18 April 2013 by Neelix as redirects to sociotechnical system, and retargeted by the nominator at 05:30 on 23 January 2016 (today), a couple of hours after this was listed. Si Trew (talk) 12:15, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment these are all quite rare or coined compound words that mostly seem to have poorly defined meanings. When writers use them they are talking about the intersection between technology and society in some context and feel the need to roll out a fancy word. I got a whole bunch of the worst (like 8 google hits) deleted at CSD. Given the speed of creation and non-existence of some of the terms I'm sure he simply pulled them all from his butt with no research. Therefore please don't use the targets of some of these words to justify how others should be targeted - let's start from the assumption they are all wrong until proven correct. Legacypac (talk) 19:33, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would it make sense to discuss Sociotechnician and Socio-technician here also?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:35, 1 February 2016 (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.

Occasional[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 general consensus is that there isn't a best target and we shouldn't create disambig / soft redirects for every real word. Deryck C. 14:52, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Occasional does not mean occasion except in one sense. Better target? Legacypac (talk) 05:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Notecardforfree, it was you who suggested retargeting away from there! Si Trew (talk) 06:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! Wow! I can't believe I forgot about the earlier RfD ... it's only me, it's not my mind, that is confusing things. I've struck my vote and I'm going to change it to a weak keep (out respect for my own vote at the previous RfD), though I think that creating a DAB page could would also be a good idea. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:27, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But is it? A redirect trumps search results, and I think those results are more useful. To get the search results one must summon up Special:Search, but none of the UI "search" elements does that, at least for me. Si Trew (talk) 05:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Si Trew, see this. Steel1943 (talk) 05:30, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware that {{Wiktionary redirect}} includes a WP link search, but that is one click farther than without the redirect at all. At some point we do have to just say "Wikipedia is not a dictionary", disappointing though it may be to some readers.
For naive readers who expect WP to be a dictionary, it is I guess more surprising that for some words WP has this "suggest Wiktionary" and for others it doesn't (i.e. "just" brings up search results). Those readers could well not be aware that the behaviour was coded for each individual word-form (i.e. as a soft redirect). What could be nice, maybe, is if it were automatic for WP to include wikt search results for exact matches, in the same style as {{wikt}}, at the top of the search results. (A bit like how some search engines do sponsored links – prominent but not in-yer-face). But that would need a change to the search front end, I guess: something for the village pump maybe. Si Trew (talk) 19:53, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A fair question for VPP maybe. If we did decide that Wiktionary redirects are useful, it would likely be a simple thing to program a bot to create them for every word in the dictionary which doesn't have an article already. For an example, see this Twitter bot which tweeted every word in the English language over the course of seven years, or this one (possibly NSFW) which is tweeting one particular word in front of every other one. But would that be beneficial? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:54, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Si Trew. I think search results could be meaningful for readers here, and I think we're better off resorting to Wiktionary only when that's not the case. --BDD (talk) 16:40, 8 February 2016 (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.

Disney collusion litigation[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) sst✈(conjugate) 06:35, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Google search reveals one headline that uses this in addition to this Wikipedia redirect. Not a logical search term and even if it was this would not be the logical target. Mrfrobinson (talk) 14:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the Twinkle failure but should every lawsuit that Disney is hit with have a redirect? Especially a lawsuit that was just filed. Google searches for "disney collusion" do not yield anything tangible. This is a redirect in lieu of an article based on a 24 hour news cycle. Wikipedia is not a news source and shouldn't be treated as one. Mrfrobinson (talk) 23:17, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your sentiment, but the information on the lawsuit is in fact in the article, at the section targeted by this redirect. A redirect's purpose is to get readers to the information they're looking for. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Section redirect of a topic covered in reliable sources. Meets RPURPOSE, and redirects are cheap. --Regards, James(talk/contribs) 21:34, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ivanvector and James. I've marked the target as {{R to section}}, and added the section to the nom above. Si Trew (talk) 04:48, 3 February 2016 (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.

WikiProject Med Foundation[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) sst✈(conjugate) 06:33, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pollution of namespace, confusion with Wikiprojects. Not noteworthy enough to warrant even a redirect, and redirect article James Heilman does not even have a section on the Wikiproject, only some minor sentenced comments that are trivial at best. Aeonx (talk) 09:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: In addition to the nom, likely to cause confusion to those not familiar with the Wikipedia: namespace. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 10:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Softlavender. This is an entity external to Wikipedia and is discussed at this target. It is unfortunately named in a way similar to a prominent on-wiki usage (for WikiProjects) but we can't control that, nor should we try to. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. It's not ambiguous because we don't have a WikiProject by that name: Wikipedia:WikiProject Med Foundation. -- Tavix (talk) 16:23, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will also mention that in the article, "Wiki Project" is two words. I couldn't find it at first because I was searching for "WikiProject." Probably doesn't affect the redirect, but noting in case anyone has the same problem. -- Tavix (talk) 16:30, 1 February 2016 (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.

One horse[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 Beeblebrox (talk) 20:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I expected one horse town but there are plenty of things that are one horse. Legacypac (talk) 08:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as incorrect and misleading. There are many vehicles involving one horse. And also "one-horse town" and so on. Softlavender (talk) 09:28, 1 February 2016 (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.

Good ale[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 Beeblebrox (talk) 20:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No one should search for Good ale (a quality drink) to get to a surname. Legacypac (talk) 08:42, 1 February 2016 (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.

Gabbling[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 Beeblebrox (talk) 20:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neelix word play. These terms have quite distinct meanings. Legacypac (talk) 07:32, 1 February 2016 (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.

Middling[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 Beeblebrox (talk) 20:17, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neelix word association game. Don't think this is a very good match. Any better choices? Legacypac (talk) 04:09, 1 February 2016 (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.

China National Highway 228[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 accept draft. Renaming the existing article is a possible further step; I'll leave that outside the scope of this closure. Deryck C. 10:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:REDLINK there is no article on the current corresponding highway. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 01:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:REDLINK. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 10:27, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stubbify otherwise someone will try moving China National Highway 228 (1981) to the primary, which just generates confusion. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 12:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - oh my, is it ever hard to find information on this! Wikipedia and its mirrors are certainly polluting the Google results here. Basically I can't find any information at all on China's 2013 highways plan, except what might be a source in Chinese but I don't read it and can't get Google to translate it. That said, even if we could stubbify it, none of the other proposed new routes in the plan (basically G228 and up) have articles, because there's no info about them. So I think it's best to leave this target as it is for now. WP:REDLINK doesn't apply if there's not an article possible on the topic, in my opinion. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or reverse the redirect. Until an article is written on the subject, the 1981 Highway remains the primary topic on Wikipedia, even if it isn't the primary topic in real life. Deleting this redirect would only make it harder to find the 1981 highway. --Tavix (talk · contribs) 16:21, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move the draft over the redirect—and much thanks for that, IP. And while not exactly related to this discussion, I'd say move the current target article to China National Highway 228 (Taiwan), which is a more WP:RECOGNIZABLE disambiguator. "1981" is oblique. I assume it's the year it was proposed, but that's not included in the article now. Looking over Highway system in Taiwan, the actual Taiwan wouldn't have a highway 228 anyway, and we can always hatnote there. --BDD (talk) 16:38, 8 February 2016 (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.

Svenska[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 Swedish. (non-admin closure) sst✈(conjugate) 06:30, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Improper redirect target. The word svenska can refer to the language or to a female Swedish person, and it can also be used as an adjective. Retarget to Swedish. Stefan2 (talk) 00:37, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

:warning: retargeting this will require a lot of changes to articles that have etymology, probably. Si Trew (talk) 05:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there was only one use in mainspace, in the infobox at Active Worlds; I've changed that to WP:USEENGLISH here (and for Hungarian, Italian and Spanish; the other languages were already in English). Si Trew (talk) 05:28, 3 February 2016 (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/2016_February_1&oldid=1047519899"