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. Ruslik_Zero 19:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Fat" Jacob Moses → Edmond Honda (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Not mentioned in target article; seems to be a joke(?) based on this Facebook page. I can find no other source to support the existence of the name "Fat" Jacob Moses at all. From the same editor responsible for the nonsensical Cheesechrist → Anthony Head, see below on April 16.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 04:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Seems to be a joke, other than that implausible search term. Swarm ^X 07:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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. I'm closing this early per WP:SNOW as it's clear what the outcome is, and as it's obviously in active use it's not beneficial to interrupt that longer than necessary. If anyone objects to my closing this discussion having participated in it, please drop me a note on my talk page. Thryduulf (talk) 23:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:GAC → Wikipedia:Good article nominations (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Propose retarget to WP:Good article criteria as it is obviously the acronym for that page. 'Good article candidates' was renamed to 'good article nominations' in September 2007 and the community has had 3 1/2 years to get used to 'GAN'. It's time for the actual "GAC" page to get the redirect. Swarm ^X 01:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per nom. Okay, keep, and if possible phase out, per all the people below who are attached to it.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 04:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per nom. If you haven't already done so (I haven't looked) you should put a pointer to this discussion at both the talk pages. Thryduulf (talk) 08:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done, thanks. Swarm ^X 18:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is used in a great many places, and, despite the rename, it should be kept for consistency with FAC, FPC, FSC and so on. As with them, WIA__ redirects to the criteria. J Milburn (talk) 11:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep since it has about 4,000 links to it which generate hundreds of hits per month. Retargeting it all wouldn't be a great benefit and would break a lot of archived links. Hut 8.5 15:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, I meant to address that point above but forgot. The redirect has existed for many years, so naturally it has many links to it. But that's what ((redirect)) is for. Retargeting is certainly nothing that would damage the integrity or processes of Wikipedia, and people will easily be able to find their way to the right page. The long term negative effects of a retargeting will be nonexistent. Swarm ^X 18:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep until the old links can be fixed, retarget if that happens. Ideally the criteria page is the best target, but retargeting is not worth the cost of breaking all those existing links. Skomorokh 18:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, many incoming links, and even if these are changed, old revision will be broken. Consistency with the F*C is also a plus. Typing one less letter for the "criteria" page is not worth changing this redirect. —Кузьма^討論 20:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is a useful redirect and changing it would create many problems. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but deprecate. It is premature to retarget this redirect, which has many incoming links and is still used even after 3.5 years. We have WP:GACR and WP:WIAGA for the criteria, so the main problem with WP:GAC is that it is misleading: there is no process called "Good article candidates" (the GA nominations process is completely different from featured candidates processes, so the different name is important) and GAC is an acronym for the criteria. By deprecation, I mean that editors should be encouraged to replace raw occurences of "WP:GAC" by piped versions (using WP:GAN, as in "WP:GAC") and replace GAC by GAN in piped uses (i.e., replace "stuff" by "stuff"). The same would apply to the associated talk page redirects (WT:GAN and WT:GAC). We can then revisit the issue in a year's time, when perhaps the incoming links will be substantially fewer. Geometry guy 21:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting. And perhaps a bot could then take care of the archived links then. Swarm ^X 22:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for consistency.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I wondered why this was on RfD. Seriously. FAC Wikicopter _{what i do} s + c cup|former 02:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I always type it to get to the GA nom page. No reason to switch target. CTJF83 22:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I myself landed here because I typed WP:GAC expecting to get to the good article candidates. --Deryck C. 21:28, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 revert to disambiguation page. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Drunk tank → Rooster_Teeth_Productions#The_Drunk_Tank_Podcast

Propose maintaining a separate page for Drunk tank... maybe. It could just be that I'm getting old, but I've never heard of the Rooster Teeth Productions Drunk Tank Podcast. It could just be me, but I grew up thinking a drunk tank is a police holding cell for intoxicated persons who may or may not be subsequently charged with public intoxication. I'm asking WP editors because I'm not exactly hip to new pop culture things; my son had to explain to me what "Beeberfever" is last week! 99.231.241.146 (talk) 02:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, after reading about Rooster Teeth Productions, I'm thinking maybe we should just keep things the way they are. I know video games are a big part of life these days for so many people, and Rooster Teeth seems to be a very notable organization (they are on iTunes, after all). Would still be nice to get some outside opinions, though. 99.231.241.146 (talk) 03:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The common meaning of the phrase "drunk tank" is a jail cell where drunk and disorderly people are locked up to regain their sobriety. I would guess that that's the meaning most people would have in mind when they enter "drunk tank" into the search box. I would suggest restoring this version of Drunk tank and changing the phrase in the second entry to something like "... to isolate and contain people suffering alcohol intoxication." Hopefully that will satisfy whoever is insisting on having a blulink in there.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 04:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Revert per Glenfarclas. Obviously the law enforcement usage is primary usage. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 04:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Revert per Glenfarlas, it could just as legitimately link to prison cell as the most related article. Swarm ^X 07:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Revert to dismabiguation and reword per Glenfarclas. No strong preference between suggested targets. Thryduulf (talk) 08:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Soft-redirect to Wiktionary. All the inbound links and the all evidence about common usage are in the context of intoxication, nothing in the context of the podcast. I don't consider this podcast to be anywhere close meeting Wikipedia's generally accepted inclusion standards for more than a passing mention. A redirect (or the near-equivalent disambiguation page) is better than a stand-alone article but that's faint praise. On the other hand, none of the current articles about intoxication seem especially appropriate to this title. On the whole, I think sending readers to Wiktionary will have the best odds of answering their question about "drunk tanks". Rossami (talk) 17:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Looks like there is no clear consensus, so be conservative and keep things as they are, at least for now. Also, reverting the link to Rooster Teeth would be a disservice to perhaps millions of gamers while keeping it only inconveniences a few drunks at most. 99.231.241.146 (talk) 22:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]