Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 July 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 6[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 6, 2016.

Wikipedia:BetaWiki[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 mw:Extension:Translate. Deryck C. 16:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly misleading WP:XNR since the redirect's target is an article. That, and BetaWiki already exists. Steel1943 (talk) 22:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why misleading? The redirect was created because there would otherwise be red links, e.g. from Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive100#Help_on_promoting_BetaWiki. Nemo 07:15, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just because red links exist is not alone a reason to create a redirect such as this one. Besides that one sole link, the rest of the links are a result of the redirect being nominated. Pages in the "Wikipedia:" page (in theory) are supposed to be about or redirect to pages about aspects of subjects in regards to their usage within Wikipedia. In fact, per the linked discussion, it seems that the editor Steinninn was asking for a page within the "Wikipedia:" namespace to be created to help editors understand the usage of the subject within Wikipedia itself. Compare this analogy to the two pages Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Wikipedia: Wikipedia is about Wikipedia as an encyclopedic subject, and Wikipedia:Wikipedia redirects to Wikipedia:About, a page that explains Wikipedia within the view of Wikipedia itself. In a nutshell, readers who look up Wikipedia:BetaWiki with the expectations that the page that will find or be redirected to as a result of looking this term up will be about the subject's use in Wikipedia itself are going to be disappointed/mislead. Steel1943 (talk) 20:21, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget' to the Mediawiki page. User searching for this would expect something about its use on Wikimedia projects. If going to MediaWiki is seen as too broad for that, keep since WP to articlespace redirects are much less of an issue for anyone using them, since they are likely to be experienced to have even heard of Betawiki ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:21, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Soft retargeting to mw:Extension:Translate" (the target referenced in the previous comment) would definitely resolve the concerns presented in my nomination statement. Steel1943 (talk) 14:25, 10 July 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:BentonCompPAGE[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---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:49, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Target is not a project page or user essay. Steel1943 (talk) 22:53, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's been years since I remembered what the correct protocol was for these things, but yeah, not needed. It wouldn't be unreasonable to have just deleted the redirect as some kind of housekeeping. Cheers. -- Ned Scott 23:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No longer needed; housekeeping. — Gorthian (talk) 16:59, 11 July 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:Bay Area Wikixalon[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, G7. -- Tavix (talk) 23:50, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikixalon" seems like too implausible of a misspelling, even for retargeting to Wikipedia:Bay Area WikiSalon. Steel1943 (talk) 22:35, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Steel1943. It was a typo (my bad). The page was a placeholder. It is no longer needed as a page was created later with the intended name (without the typo). I have requested a speedy deletion so you can withdraw this RfD. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. No need to retarget. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 23:41, 6 July 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.

Teacher of philosophy[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 July 14#Teacher of philosophy

Wikipedia:MISS[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 both as is. -- Tavix (talk) 04:11, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These two redirects are very similar in use, and go to similarly titled articles. There should be consistency here. (In addition, MISS could plausibly go to the Mississippi WikiProject.) MelanieLamont (talk) 06:39, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a hatnote we can put in front of each as with WP:Television and WP:TV? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:23, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both as the shortcuts are both over 10 years old and have since then targeted their current targets. Steel1943 (talk) 16:56, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Alternatively, weak support converting the redirects into individual disambiguation pages per the nom's rationale of ambiguity. However, I'm more for "keep"ing these redirects since hatnotes could probably suffice better in this case since they are "WP:" shortcuts. Steel1943 (talk) 17:03, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I have fixed the nomination in this edit (the nominations should contain the entire name of the namespace), changed the section's name while adding an anchor for older edits in the edit history, placed {{Rfd}} on both nominated redirects, and notified the redirects' creators about this discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 17:10, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Set Indexfy it seems that there's a lot of Wikiproject missing (foo) in the Wiki name space. --Lenticel (talk) 00:41, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:08, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Hatnotes on both targets do the job of helping people find what they need. Neither a disambiguation page or a set index would be helpful in place of the redirects; it's hard enough finding one's way around the Wikipedia namespace without adding the complexity of wading through a dab page to get to one of these oft-used targets.— Gorthian (talk) 17:13, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Steel1943 and Gorthian. Old, established redirects with hatnotes for each other already. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:33, 13 July 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:Television[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 Wikipedia:WikiProject Television.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:11, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SURPRISE. Wikipedia:WikiProject Television is a more logical place to point this, following Wikipedia:TV. Looking an incoming uses suggests users are making this mistake. There's already a hatnote at the WikiProject page to the WikiTV one. BDD (talk) 16:06, 6 July 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.

Nάνα[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. I'm convinced by the arguments that the mixed script makes this an implausible typo. Thryduulf (talk) 11:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The first letter is Latin N. The properly spelt Νάνα also exists (although it was created a year later than the misspelt one) so it's conceivable this could have been an intentional {{R from misspelling}}. Redirects with misspellings that mix Latin with Cyrillic or Greek letters have their place here (like "CCCP" (all Latin) redirecting to USSR, which in Russian is spelt in Russian as "СССР" (all Cyrillic)). But in this case there's a mix of recognisably Greek letters with a Latin letter. Of course, these can come up as typoes if you don't time well enough the switching of your keyboard layout when typing. But the cases where this can happen are extremely numerous, this is something that should ideally be dealt with by the search engine (even if it doesn't seem up to the task at present), and if we started making redirects to take care of these what we'll end up with will be a veritable mess. Delete seems most sensible. Uanfala (talk) 15:42, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Nana (Greek mythology). If it's a possible typo, then there's no harm in keeping it. But there's only one article on the DAB page Nana that a Greek version of the name would apply to, so that should be the target. (I already retargeted the other redirect, Νάνα, to Nana (Greek mythology).) — Gorthian (talk) 21:32, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • It can also refer to Nana (given name). Anyway, this typo does not seem like a useful one for an English-speaker, so I support deletion. Gorobay (talk) 14:20, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is no Νάνα in the name article, whereas Νάνα is explicitly mentioned in Nana (Greek mythology).
        • Did you read the article? It is a Greek name and that is how it is spelled. It shouldn’t matter whether it is written in Greek letters or not. Gorobay (talk) 20:59, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • I read the introduction to Nana (given name), which begins: Nana is a given name that has different origins in several countries across the world. I took that to mean that it isn't Greek per se. — Gorthian (talk) 22:49, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Gorthian. Seems like the best target.---- Patar knight - chat /contributions 16:53, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my comment at the other discussion below. I don't see any plausibility that someone would switch keyboards in the middle of typing a word. -- Tavix (talk) 18:33, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:40, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my rationale below. Deryck C. 16:51, 14 July 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.

Eπανάσταση (Mixed Latin/Greek letters)[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 move without redirect to the fully Cyrillic forms, effectively deleting the mixed script forms. Thryduulf (talk) 11:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This was a redirect created in error: its fist letter is Latin E and the rest are unmistakably Greek. It can't have been an intentional {{R from misspelling}} as the properly typed redirect Επανάσταση doesn't exist. We would want to create the proper redirect and delete the misspelt one, and the best way I can imagine of doing it, as suggested above, is by moving without leaving behind a redirect (in order to keep the page history).

There are 20 or so more redirects like these (where the first letter is Latin and the rest are Greek or Cyrillic) and I'm trying to gauge the best way to handle them. If it's best to move them (as I suggest), then maybe they can most efficiently be dealt with by a bulk request at WP:RM#TR (technical moves). An alternative, which I've tried on a couple of these, is moving them myself and then requesting the speedy deletion of the leftover redirect per WP:G6.

19 more redirects
Uanfala (talk) 10:30, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What I'm noticing is in that every one of these, it's the initial letter that is ambiguous. I, for one, cannot see any difference between "MЛПУ" and "МЛПУ". I can easily imagine someone starting to type with the Latin letter, switching to Greek for the rest, and not noticing any difference. Why not go ahead and create the non-mixed-alphabet versions of these redirects, so we can cover both the Greek-keyboard user and the user who switches keyboards? I see no harm in letting these be. — Gorthian (talk) 21:45, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One reason not to create redirects like these is that not a single one of them seems to have been created on purpose. Of course, the fact that they were created by mistake indicates such mistakes are possible, and I would definitely back up any sensible proposal to deal with such typos as I myself make them often enough. However, doing that by creating redirects is unworkable. In the Cyrillic scripts, one third of all letters are complete Latin lookalikes, and these are also among the most frequently used ones. Layout-switching errors affect not only the first character in a word, but also longer strings both at the beginning and at the end (and sometimes isolated ones in the middle). What this means is that for every single Cyrillic redirect we'll have to create at least half a dozen mixed-script redirects to cover only the most plausible switching errors. This would be extremely laborious, and it will be pointless as well: the sensible way to handle that is through the search engine. It's much easier to implement a simple rule to detect and fix mixed-script strings, than to create tens of thousands of extra redirects. Uanfala (talk) 15:16, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not suggesting that we create any more of this type of redirect, any more than we create redirects for all possible typos in English, but that we leave the ones that exist alone. These could have been created by someone that actually made the typo, then just made the redirect out of it for convenience. If so, then someone finds them useful.— Gorthian (talk)
It's very unlikely that an editor would deliberately create redirects with a certain typo when not even in a single case have they (or anyone else) created the corresponding redirect without the typo. Uanfala (talk) 17:50, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is quite likely if they didn't realize it was a typo.— Gorthian (talk) 18:20, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My point precisely! The typos in these redirects can't be there on purpose. Uanfala (talk) 19:17, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If a typo happened once, it can happen again, so the redirects are useful as they are, even though they were created accidentally.. — Gorthian (talk) 22:55, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but we don't keep every single accidentally created redirect (a case in point is the recent discussion about Divided W Fall. There exists a threshold of plausibility for typos. Uanfala (talk) 11:30, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all as plausible redirects for when people switch between keyboards (especially on mobile). ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:54, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all, and create the "proper" redirects as well. StAnselm (talk) 19:13, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that the opinions here seem to be swaying towards a keep vote, it's worth pointing to the three similar redirects I had had deleted by WP:G6: Eμβισαρoς, Aγία Σοφία, Aντιoχίς, should anyone wish to restore them. Uanfala (talk) 10:56, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this seems to fall under the "pages unambiguously created in error" point under G6. If it was uncontroversial (which it's obviously not), I probably would have recommended speedy deletion. I don't see the use for something like this. Sure, it would benefit someone switching keyboards, but who does that in the middle of a word, and more importantly, in the exact same place as this? This would fall in the implausible typo category. -- Tavix (talk) 13:32, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:39, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Επανάσταση as suggested - nobody is ever going to type a Latin E followed by Greek letters, so this is clearly an implausible typo.--Newbiepedian (talk · contribs · X! · logs) 22:00, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. These redirects are {{R from foreign language}} AND {{R from misspelling}} AND the equivalent correct redirects without mixed script don't exist. These points combined suggest that the redirects serve little purpose. Sampling some of the page histories, it seems that most of them were erroneously created, so we shouldn't keep them. Deryck C. 16:47, 14 July 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.

Jeopardisers[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. After two relisting and just about every possible solution suggested it's clear that there is no consensus here. Thryduulf (talk) 12:05, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should Jeopardy and related forms really point to endangerment? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:00, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Patar knight, I'm sure Template:Wiktionary redirect's "readers search for it" is intentionally vague, but do you really think two hits a month qualifies? That's absolutely noise level: at the most two actual human beings, in reality probably one or none, trying them in an average month. And who knows why? They may just see it pop up in the search box suggestions and get curious. --BDD (talk) 15:07, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
BDD, I would redirect anything with two hits a month or more, while pages with between 1–2 hits are possibly redirected based on how commonly used the word is and how simple the changes to the base word are (e.g. a word that seems widely used in reliable sources would get redirected and something that adds just a "-er" to the base word is usually a far more likely search than adding an "re-" to the start and an "-istically" to the end.). If you click on the Agent drop-down menu, this new page view tool divides views into actual users, spiders (i.e. web crawlers), and bots, so unless the tool is inaccurate, these are in fact real users looking up the word. Redirects are cheap and if they're helping out a reader or two a month, that's fine with me. In any case, 7 of the 12 redirects in this RfD are getting more than 4 hits per month, while the top for get between 10 and 100 hits a month. Those should certainly be soft redirected, since the Jeopardy (disambiguation) page is entirely unrelated to this meaning of this word and thus a poor target. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:01, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect to Wiktionary -- The Anome (talk) 08:19, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - two hits a month could be a crawler. There's no need to essentially replicate a dictionary inside the encyclopedia. MSJapan (talk) 00:23, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete all. If a user can not search for a altrernate form of a word they do not need an encyclopedia they need to finish second grade. (i.e., we do not need to spoon feed readers, readers are not idiots) - Nabla (talk) 23:15, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget all to Jeopardy (disambiguation) where the reader will find relevant information, including a link to wikt:jeopardy. Yes we should spoon-feed the reader where there is something appropriate to spoon-feed them. Deryck C. 13:24, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Deryck, the Jeopardy (disambiguation) page seems to be entirely links to TV shows and songs named Jeopardy and then a see also link to double jeopardy. The thing most useful to the people searching the terms in this RfD is probably the wiktionary box, so wouldn't it makes sense to just soft redirect? ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:01, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I still think people who search for these words will be looking for a general article on the concept of "jeopardy" (which we don't have). So we should give them a Wiktionary link for "jeopardy", which is at Jeopardy (disambiguation), which I still think is preferable to individual Wiktionary redirects. Second choice Wiktionary redirect per Patar knight. Deryck C. 16:43, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there isn't an article about danger but there is relevant content at risk. Siuenti (talk) 16:47, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect to Wiktionary per Patar knight. Redirects are cheap and if people are hitting these pages then they are useful. Retargeting to risk would be my second choice. PaleAqua (talk) 23:26, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 00:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 15:33, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep jeopardize and jeopardise as plausible synonyms; delete the rest. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:29, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all – No benefit to keep. — JFG talk 23:01, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - WP:ENGVAR - regardless of google hits, if we keep an -ise version, we should keep the -ize version as well (and vice versa), per WP:ENGVAR and because "redirects are cheap". To not do so would be a direct disservice to our readers. - jc37 01:39, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I really don't have much of an opinion on these. And noting that the same editor added all of these, and they've been stable since 2008. But if it helps consensus: all the versions of the infinitive verb form to jeopardize/to jeopardise (-es, -ed, -ing), redirect to Jeopardy (disambiguation) (the dab page). It's what dab pages are for! (endangerment has a link on that dab page.) Also add Template:Wiktionary to the dab page per WP:DAB // Delete the noun forms (-er/-ers), because they refer to people, not to jeopardy or the act of placing in jeopardy. Hope this helps. - jc37 01:39, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget whichever titles are not deleted to Jeopardy (disambiguation). When there are reasonable local targets, the local target is preferred. Soft redirects to sister projects are only a good option when there is no reasonable target locally. wikt:jeopardy is linked at the suggested disambiguation target, which should to some extent satisfy those who've expressed a preference for a soft redirect to wikt. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:46, 21 July 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.

Enkephalos[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 Human brain. --BDD (talk) 19:56, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. “Εγκέφαλος” means ‘brain’, not ‘midbrain’. It should not be retargeted to Brain because brains are not specifically Greek. Gorobay (talk) 15:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak retarget to Human brain where it's listed as an identifier. There's nothing specifically Greek about brains but there is about many medical terms. This seems like reasonable enough grounds for having such redirects, but I don't see much consistency across articles: Hepar and Nephros redirect respectively to Liver and Kidney, but Pneumon or Splen don't redirect to Lung and Spleen. Uanfala (talk) 18:58, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do people speaking English call the human brain an enkephalos? Gorobay (talk) 19:31, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do people speaking English call the apple tree a Malus domestica? Uanfala (talk) 19:41, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Of course: biologists do. I know you are trying to draw an analogy between taxonomic nomenclature and the case of enkaphalos, but it would be better if you simply said that medical English uses this Greek word. Does it? Liver, Kidney, and Human brain are explaining etymologies, not saying that these words are used in English. Gorobay (talk) 20:06, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When talking about apple trees, do biologists really use (rather than quote) "Malus domestica"? Anyway, I don't see how the Greek terms at Liver etc. explain etymologies, they're explicitly listed as identifiers, aren't they? At any rate, I don't know enough about the relevant filed to be able to comment any further, so I've alerted WP:WikiProject Anatomy and WP:WikiProject Animal anatomy. Uanfala (talk) 20:23, 6 July 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.
  • Post-close note: there's some further info on this class of redirects in this post. Uanfala (talk) 13:30, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assault weapons legislation[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 move disambiguation page over redirect and retarget the other redirects to it. Deryck C. 16:49, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The target article's title suffers from a problem I described at Wikipedia:In the United States. Extensive previous discussion about renaming it makes me think such a proposal would be unlikely to succeed this time around, so I propose dealing with these instead. Deleting per WP:REDLINK might be desirable. We could also retarget to Overview of gun laws by nation, where phrases like Gun laws redirect, though I don't know how much that would satisfy readers. Only the sections on Japan and New Zealand (not even the US!) mention assault weapons. Assault weapons ban (disambiguation) is worth considering too. Maybe a better candidate for a WP:CONCEPTDAB, but could move to the base title if the redirect is deleted. I would support almost any change here. --BDD (talk) 14:52, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not a huge fan of Assault weapons ban (disambiguation) as a potential target because it only discusses U.S. laws at the moment, though if the DAB page were expanded, it could make a good target. That said, I am going to vote delete because I think there is a viable topic here for a standalone article (about assault weapons bans, in general). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 15:31, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there really Wikipedia:In the United States issue here? "Assault weapon" itself appears to be a U.S. term of legal art. Other jurisdictions either have different terms of art, or don't parse the distinctions between various types of weapons in such detail in the first place (e.g. where I am, AFAIK the finest distinction we draw is between "firearms" and "arms" in general). 210.6.254.106 (talk) 19:07, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If the term is being used in other countries, then redirect to the dab page. I've added Overview of gun laws by nation to the dab page in the meantime. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:50, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 15:23, 6 July 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.

猫[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 July 13#猫

N Kress[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.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:24, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:XY since there are two people surnamed "Kress" with a given name beginning with "N.:" Nancy Kress and Nathan Kress. Without evidence of either of them going by "N. Kress," I also think this should be deleted per WP:R#D8. -- Tavix (talk) 14:39, 6 July 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.

WEEKLY SHONEN JUMP[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. -- Tavix (talk) 04:04, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirect left over after an old page move. We already have Weekly Shonen Jump. I would have tagged this as speedy G6 but the page is protected. nyuszika7h (talk) 14:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see this stylization used throughout the website [1] It's only for the cover. It's not like Tokyopop which uses caps stylization throughout their product announcements. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:41, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep plausible all-caps variant --Lenticel (talk) 00:39, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as likely mis-typing. — Gorthian (talk) 05:05, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Many Japanese periodicals/music artists etc. are written in full caps, a redirect is definately justified. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 13:01, 11 July 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 Money (group)[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) 19:52, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Its a false name Igotrekt (talk) 14:00, 6 July 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:Avoid personal remarks,[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.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:21, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term due to the comma at the end of the redirect's title. Steel1943 (talk) 12:30, 6 July 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:Attention Span and the Internet[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.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:22, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Probably inappropriate redirect since the targeting about the user's objectives and not a community essay. Steel1943 (talk) 05:09, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth do you mean by official essay? There is no such thing. Moving the whole thing is an alterantive to deleting. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 13:00, 11 July 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.

Foreign language redirects to Wikipedia:Article Feedback Tool[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. -- Tavix (talk) 03:59, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No incoming links, alternative language to English. WP:FORRED. Steel1943 (talk) 04:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. — Gorthian (talk) 04:15, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Artikeleinschätzung" may be a correct German word, but I never heard anybody calling the extension like that. And I was heavily involved in it's development and localization. --TMg 11:15, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - There is absolutely no ambiguity here - no one is going to go to these links for any other purpose. As they do no harm there is absolutely no reason to get rid of them. FORRED is an essay and is really not applicable as long as there is no risk of ambiguity. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 12:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • While WP:FORRED may be an essay, it is an essay based on a perceived common result of discussion related to foreign-language redirects which I agree with in this case. On the English Wikipedia, unless these redirects were used in some sort of documentation or presentation that was used on the English Wikipedia, these redirects have the potential to be perceived by readers as pertaining to something else, regardless if that subject has or has not ever existed on this Wikipedia. Steel1943 (talk) 13:43, 11 July 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:Articles about drugs[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 just say no (delete). --BDD (talk) 19:48, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The target of the redirect isn't about any type of list of articles about drugs (or information about drug notability, etc.), but rather a WikiProject. Steel1943 (talk) 01:46, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:54, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This actually seems like a sensible redirect. Casual readers aren't likely to be searching in WP namespace for articles, but editors trying to find article standards and guidelines could very well use this. — Gorthian (talk) 16:54, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabify aside from the current target, I think this redirect can also point to Category:Drugs, Wikipedia:WikiProject Drug Policy and Portal:Pharmacy and Pharmacology --Lenticel (talk) 00:54, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Lenticel's research: this is vague. The fact that this is in the Wikipedia namespace means that it isn't a likely search term, so there's no reason to disambiguate it. -- Tavix (talk) 03:20, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm okay with a delete as well if others see the redirect as too vague --Lenticel (talk) 03:40, 13 July 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.

Heccccchluuug[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 speedily deleted by Boing! said Zebedee. Consensus here was to delete as well. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:23, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this seems like novel or obscure onomatopoeia for vomiting. -- Tavix (talk) 00:18, 6 July 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.

Jimmy Two[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.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:21, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a novel or obscure way to refer to James II. Most of my hits are WP:PTMs for Jimmy Two-Shoes or Jimmy Two Times. -- Tavix (talk) 00:03, 6 July 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_July_6&oldid=1088109578"