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 snow keep. Nothing has changed since the previous RFD. This is a well trafficed redirect and consensus remains that the present target does the job. Each year this redirect has been updated reasonably promptly so there are no maintenance problems though methods to facilitate this are being discussed. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 16:46, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Recent deaths → Deaths in 2014 (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

This is a very old redirect that was part of the main page portal several years ago, and still has some incoming links. It also is potentially useful for people using Search. Its got a lot of edit history, so just seeking consensus to permanently redirect this to Lists of deaths by year. The current year is always at the top of that list, "recent" can mean more than just the current year, and permanent redirection eliminates the need to maintain it. Netoholic @ 00:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Note Previously nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 April 29 Ego White Tray (talk) 03:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Readers seeking recent deaths want to know who has died now, not back to 1987. Landing readers on Lists of deaths by year requires them to navigate again which is an unnecessary frustration. There are many gnomes working on Deaths in 2014 and its successors who also update related pages like Recent deaths as required. The proposed redirect adds reader effort and frustration without adding any real value to the project. There is no need to broaden the meaning of "recent". WWGB (talk) 01:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please say keep or delete. Oppose is vague - it could mean you oppose deletion or it could mean you oppose the redirect. Ego White Tray (talk) 01:17, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Any maybe we should make a bot to automatically update pages like this? Ego White Tray (talk) 01:17, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I would like to know how the nominator's idea that "'recent' can mean more than just the current year". By definition, "recent" means "belonging to a past period of time comparatively close to the present".[1] That doesn't mean within the past 12 months or even the past 20 as listed at LODBY. — Wyliepedia 01:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Humans have conquered this world and raised this encyclopedia. By human timeframes, "recent" doesn't suggest 27 years ago, even if we're old people. Increasingly, our audience (and planet) is made of young people. For everyone who remembers 1987, there are many more who (through no fault of their own) don't remember a time before YouTube and Adderall. What counts as recent is getting smaller as the people are. Even yesterday's "so last week" (itself already an "old saying"). They need all the redirection we can muster. I'm not saying we should totally cater to Westernized youth, but they're statistically likely still "the future", so it couldn't hurt to consider them. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Extremely useful, it takes you to exactly what you are looking for, and "Deaths in X" is called "recent deaths" on the main page. Gamaliel (talk) 03:28, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've opened a discussion about how this redirect could be automated: Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 128#Allow Current year and similar switches in redirects. This will likely be in archive 127 someday. Ego White Tray (talk) 05:08, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Necessary, useful, exact and quick. No reason to make things overly complicated as suggested. Remember Occam's Razor.Sunnydoo (talk) 05:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep keeping this redirect pointing towards the current year is clearly useful. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 04:39, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There is also a discussion of how redirects such as this could be made easier to track: Wikipedia talk:Template messages/Redirect pages#R template for time-sensitive redirects Ego White Tray (talk) 05:54, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: "recent" hardly means "all". It is better to fix time-sensetive redirects maintenance process then to deny answers to simple questions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 08:07, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I concur with all points made above by those who advocate "Keep". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for searching purposes, no harm in it. Geschichte (talk) 12:13, 12 July 2014 (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 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) 16:14, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Shake Hands With The Unemployed → Masturbation (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

No RSes that use this term, just stuff like Urban Dictionary. It's also not mentioned in the article. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 19:51, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Funny, but delete. JMJimmy (talk) 20:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Also, quite frankly bogus. Not all peni used for this purpose are unemployed - she might not be in the mood, for instance.--Launchballer 20:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's just a logical phallus-y. If you're using it you're employed, for money or pleasure. If you're unemployed you're going to be holding it. Either way, IT is never unemployed. JMJimmy (talk) 20:18, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: unencyclopedic. Or should I say transwiki to Uncyclopedia? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 21:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: it more commonly refers to urination than masturbation (see wikt:shake hands with the unemployed), but a disambiguation page at this title (or a hatnote on the urination article) wouldn't be any more constructive than a redirect. quant18 (talk) 05:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Possibly retarget? - a soft redirect to the wiktionary page could work here. Ansh666 07:40, 8 July 2014 (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 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, delete, and delete, respectively. --BDD (talk) 16:36, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• 大韓民國 → South Korea (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

• 大韓民国 → South Korea (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 
• 韓国 → South Korea (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Not especially Chinese. TheChampionMan1234 06:54, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep first one (大韓民國, which is Hanja, Chinese characters "incorporated into the Korean language"), delete other two. BTW, the second, 大韓民国 is strictly Japanese. TLA 3x ♭ → ♮ 06:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Hanja title, delete Japanese and Chinese. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 21:17, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep 'Hanja' Hanja is Korean -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:14, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Chinese characters are (or were) common in Korean and Japanese. The first redirect here is the Traditional variant, while the other two are shorthand incorporated into Simplified (though both systems use it regularly with varying degrees of formality). Being Chinese (and therefore automatically better than the Japanese and Koreans, of course ), I'm not sure whether this is also true for Hanja, though I do note that the system has largely fallen out of use. Ansh666 08:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, considering the decent amount of Chinese living in both Koreas, this might not fall under WP:FORRED... Ansh666 03:36, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Keep I tend to support the Ansh666's sound analysis above. He seems to have a point. Cavarrone 19:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep first, delete other two. Long rationale:
  1. The first redirect is hanja. Like Ansh666 said, hanja are mostly unused in South Korea today. However they've survived in a few niches ... one of which is country names in newspaper headlines (e.g. a Naver News search for 大韓民國[2] shows the most recent result to be a Chosun Ilbo headline from last week).
  2. The other two redirects are not simplified Chinese (which would be 韩国/大韩民国). They are post-WWII Japanese orthography (i.e. a way of writing that only started being used when Japanese rule over Korea had already ended).
  3. Our article on Chinese people in Korea says that they're only about 1.5% of South Korea's population and that many are descendants of earlier Korean emigrants to China in the first place. So even if any of these redirects were Simplified Chinese in the first place, I'm not sure that would make a strong argument for keeping them. And the Japanese community in South Korea today is only in the tens of thousands of people.
  4. Also, judging from Template:Overseas Chinese, there's notable communities of Chinese emigrants living in half the countries on the planet (articles on many communities probably haven't been created yet due to language difficulties). And then there's Template:Korean diaspora, Template:Russian diaspora, Template:NRI-PIO for the notoriously multilingual & multi-alphabetical Indians, etc.

Regards quant18 (talk) 02:28, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, didn't notice the difference in 韓/韩 (I don't read Simplified). Good catch. Ansh666 03:00, 8 July 2014 (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 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) 16:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Siberian Russian language → Russian language (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

There is no such thing as this. Probably retarget to Siberian languages or similar? TheChampionMan1234 02:57, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• It would be rather misleading to redirect from something that looks like regional variaty of Russian to list of other languages. If there was some specific dialect of Russian in Siberia, it would be a good target. Otherwise delete. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 06:28, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Czarkoff: With the help of Google Translate, I have found a related article on ru.wiki, it does not have an interwiki on en.wiki, thus if the topic is natable for an article here, it could be deleted per WP:REDLINK. By the way the article is ru:Сибирские старожильческие говоры TheChampionMan1234 10:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • As you may notice from page title on Russian Wikipedia, it speaks of Subdialects of Siberian old-timers, and "subdialect" component makes WP:RED unapplicable here. Actually, the article claims that Siberian subdialects of Russian are based on Pomor dialects, so retargetting this page there may also be an option. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 11:29, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:04, 7 July 2014 (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 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) 16:19, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Mexican Monkey → Get Lucky (Daft Punk song) (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target article. I suspect it may have had a section called "Internet meme", but I can't be bothered to trawl through individual revisions and no edit summaries suggest its existence. Launchballer 17:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It refers to a misheard lyric for that song - variations of "I smell a..." "We're up a...", "Rub the..." ...Mexican Monkey. Don't get it personally but definitely not worth a redirect. JMJimmy (talk) 17:33, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More specifically the misinterpreted line in the original song is "...night to get lucky". This "meme" was extremely topical since the name of the song "Get Lucky" had not been revealed yet, and a few people were trying to discern the heavily vocodered lyrics from the teaser trailer. jhsounds (talk) 17:41, 7 July 2014 (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 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) 16:18, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Táibèi → Taipei (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

The tone marks in this transcription are incorrect, it uses the fourth tone, in contrast to the correct their tone in the second syllable, the correct one would be Táiběi. See Pinyin TheChampionMan1234 08:38, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:FORRED: typos in romanization of foreign titles are well beyond the margin. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 14:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the above. However, no prejudice to re-targeting to a place that actually has these tone marks in its pinyin name. TLA 3x ♭ → ♮ 20:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  @The Last Arietta: lol, I don't think that there is such a place TheChampionMan1234 04:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, what an abomination! Ansh666 01:37, 8 July 2014 (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 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 dabify. Personally, I find these drafted dabs helpful, as they save the closer some work, and it's not always readily apparent to a closer what should go on a dab. --BDD (talk) 16:17, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Age of maturity → Coming of age (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

I believe the redirect should be retarged to Age of majority. Currently it targets a very narrow definition which refers to a religious law with the same legal meaning as "Age of Majority" (within the context of that religion). As addressed in detail here the two terms hold the same meaning in different regions/legal sytems/time periods/religious laws. There is definitely some overlap between "age of maturity" and "coming of age" (re: Jewish tradition, debutantes), however, there is also overlap between many of the coming of age topics and age of majority (example: Jewish law vs tradition both relate to the age of maturity). It could also aid those in finding the article who only know the more common meaning of Majority JMJimmy (talk) 01:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose JMJimmy's suggestion above: Here is a WP:Permalink to the discussion JMJimmy linked to above. Like I stated there, I believe that including "age of maturity" as the WP:Alternative title is WP:Undue weight. JMJimmy stated, "The two terms do hold the same meaning depending on the law and/or region." I told him: What we are supposed to have are WP:Reliable sources that specifically state that "age of maturity" can mean the same thing as "age of majority"; otherwise, we are engaging in WP:Synthesis (see what that policy relays) by stating so. I still see no indication that "age of maturity" is commonly used to mean "age of majority." I'll likely research the matter myself later today or some time next week. "Age of maturity" clearly can mean other things, especially in relation to puberty, as seen by it currently redirecting to the Coming of age article (an article that addresses a different definition of "age of maturity" and indicates that the term might refer to some other aspects there). Because of that, especially because of where "age of maturity" currently redirects, it does not belong bolded in the lead as a WP:Alternative title...and perhaps does not belong in the lead at all. If you can find WP:Reliable sources stating that "age of maturity" means the same thing as "age of majority" in some contexts, and in more than just an Iranian context, I might be fine with it being noted in the lead, but not as the alternative title (meaning I object to it being bolded there and listed right after "Age of majority")...without sources showing that it is a common alternative title for "age of majority." And if it is common, we shouldn't bold it and list it right after "Age of majority"...considering where "age of maturity" redirects and why it redirects there). Flyer22 (talk) 01:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Againme created the "Age of maturity" redirect, and JMJimmy informed Againme of this discussion; however, the Againme account has not been active since April 14, 2014. Flyer22 (talk) 02:02, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also note: What JMJimmy means by "Currently it targets a very narrow definition which refers to a religious law with the same legal meaning as 'Age of Majority'" is that Againme redirected "Age of maturity" to "coming of age#Religious coming of age#Baha'i Faith"...a heading that no longer exists. There is obviously still a Baha'i section in the article. Flyer22 (talk) 02:15, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate aside from age of majority, there's also the maturation date in various securities, Maturity (finance), and age of sexual maturation and age of biological maturity. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:23, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would not be opposed to disambiguation of the term itself (Age of majority, Age of maturity (biblical), Coming of age, Adulthood, Legal age, etc). Not sure about including other concepts like financial maturity. Either way, re-target or disambiguate works for me. JMJimmy (talk) 12:18, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate. I drafted DAB below redirect, albeit copy edit is required. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 14:31, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another note: JMJimmy also took this matter to Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard; a WP:Permalink for it is here. Since this discussion is still going on, I think it would have been best if czarkoff (Dmitrij D. Czarkoff) had created the disambiguation page in his WP:User draft instead of taking it to WP:Main space. It being there in WP:Main space helps bias the discussion toward the creation of a disambiguation page for "age of maturity," especially since it's already there. Like I stated at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard, even if we leave out "age of maturity" as a synonym for "age of majority" in the Age of majority article because it is against the WP:Synthesis policy (unless it's acceptable to take JMJimmy's alternative approach and simply note in the Age of majority article that "age of maturity" is another term to indicate the age of adulthood, not that the terms are synonyms), we currently have a disambiguation page listing "age of maturity" as a synonym for "age of majority." Flyer22 (talk) 23:54, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did not take this issue there, I wanted third party help understanding the issues related to alternate title. As I stated before, disambiguation is fine by me. Which page it redirects to with a disambiguation is I suppose still at issue and I would like to see it changed but that's of less import JMJimmy (talk) 00:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to state that you are pissed. Addressing the topic in another place is taking the matter to another place (yes, of course it is looking for other opinions); so I don't understand your semantics on that. Flyer22 (talk) 00:09, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They are separate matters. Regardless of any outcome of either this matter or the alternate title issue I wanted a better understanding for myself. I was looking for a place to discuss the issue that did not involve some sort of dispute resolution process (3rd party/RfC etc). The noticeboard seemed to be the place to do that ("Noticeboards on Wikipedia are pages where editors can ask questions and request assistance from people who are familiar with the policies and guidelines covered by each individual board. They are to be used for specific problems that editors encounter in writing and maintaining Wikipedia articles.") - I'm pissed because you seem more intent on tossing WPs around and cross-referencing my every move. I'm sorry if I'm not living up to the ideal of wiki civility at the moment but I am restraining myself as best I can. JMJimmy (talk) 00:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't see the "matters" as separate simply because you were looking for more opinions or a place where you wouldn't have to debate the topic. Both discussions primarily have to do with the article title and WP:Synthesis. Same thing. And the Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard is a form of WP:Dispute resolution; read that page. Of course, debate was going to be involved there. And as far cross-referencing, if a matter is scattered across multiple places, I'm going to note it (except for maybe if the matter is being discussed on your own talk page, a talk page that I see the WP:Synthesis policy was addressed to you before). Such cross-referencing is my way of helping to centralize the matter; see WP:TALKCENT. Ideally, discussions about a topic should be centralized. If they are not, then so that others are aware of where else the topic was discussed, I point to it. Flyer22 (talk) 01:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do see them as separate. If this gets disambiguated and not retargetted that does not preclude a resolution to the alternate title issue. Perhaps it doesn't get resolved as an alternate title, maybe it gets put further down the page. Maybe it doesn't get resolved. Resolution of one does not preclude a resolution of the other. The notice board was my attempt to understand where YOU were coming from by getting a better understanding for myself. Had it been a dispute issue I would have done as the instructions state and notified you. My issue throughout this entire ordeal has not been with any matters of wiki policy or coming to any sort of consensus - I've tried to be open minded and assume it's my fault since you obviously have more edits than me. My sole issue is your behaviour, unfortunately the dispute mechanism for that is complex, requires more than just myself, and basically says don't bother if the person you have an issue with has a high edit count. 01:21, 8 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JMJimmy (talk • contribs)

I don't see them as significantly separate; I already explained why above. As seen, I also explained my reasoning for cross-referencing. I did not mean to upset you, and am sorry that I have done so. I was simply going about my usual way of editing. Flyer22 (talk) 01:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Flyer22: my drafting of the DAB does not bias towards any particular result. If DAB was unappropriate result, the DAB draft would bias against it. That's why drafting DABs under redirects is useful in RfD. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 07:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it that way, but I appreciate you taking the time to reply. Flyer22 (talk) 07:06, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation drafts have been created after an RfD nomination, underneath the RfD banners several times at RfD, to provide a sample draft disambiguation, that hasn't prevented them from being deleted as the outcome of the RfD in the past. Per DCD, I don't see a problem with a draft dab page appearing underneath the nominated redirect. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 02:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if the disambiguation page already existing had anything to do with Magioladitis making this edit. Flyer22 (talk) 07:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused. Is this a redirect with content below or a dab page with a falsely placed redirect tag above? -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Magioladitis, see czarkoff (Dmitrij D. Czarkoff)'s comments above. The redirect existed first. Was then nominated to be changed, which is why it's listed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, and then Dmitrij D. Czarkoff created a disambiguation page for the redirect after "voting" above that it be turned into a disambiguation page. Flyer22 (talk) 08:44, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer22 thanks. Sorry for removing the tag. I thought it was misplaced. - Magioladitis (talk) 08:49, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem; your mistake is understandable, and helps prove my point about it not having been a 100% good idea to create the disambiguation page in the middle of the discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 08:52, 11 July 2014 (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.