< August 25
August 27 >

August 26

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 26, 2015.

Victual

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. --BDD (talk) 13:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Create DAB for vittel (a place in France from which we get mineral water), wittle and ultimately vital although WP:NOTDIC. There seems to be enough confusion with these (the V/w confusion) and since we have the discussion below at Wittle I am reluctant to just WP:BOLDly retarget. Wittel is red, but the target of "Food" (and not any section of it) seems way too vague.

I think from Houseman, A Shropshire Lad

Terence this is stupid stuff
You eat your vittals fast enough
there can't be wrong with you, I fear
To see the way you drink your beer
But as for all the verse you make
It gives the heart a belly-ache...

Just going from memory, but I think it is spelled that way in that book. I should check, I know, but have to crack on with the TR of fr:Bijou. Si Trew (talk) 22:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Look up vittel in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
]
Delete. It is not a bloody misspelling, it is an ((R from old spelling)) or whatever. The C has got elided to make it [[vittel], but that is a a German town and not a word, because we are WP:NOTDIC. It no longer means vital, which is what it did mean, that is, from Latin vita 'life', and the C was introduced in about 1300 I think, before the proles had time to become literate. We are WP:NOTDIC and by targeting it to Food you lose its etymology, and forget that e.g H2O is also a victual. I didn't realise that one of the aims of Wikipedia was to subtract from human knowledge. Wiktionary doesn't have it, as you can see. from Latin ars longa, vita brevis 'Big arse, small vital organs'. Si Trew (talk) 06:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Where to buy marmite

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 refine to Marmite#Availability worldwide. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 16:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a QA site. GZWDer (talk) 19:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. Retarget per User:WilyD and above. Si Trew (talk) 22:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)can the prostitute come out of the wardrobe now?[reply]
In general I would agree with you, but with this one specifically, we do have information on it, so no good comes of deleting it except if you feel it sets a dangerous precedent. I have argued on other occasions to delete something because of it setting a precedent, but that argument usually fails. Si Trew (talk) 06:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wittle

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 wittle to whittle and delete wittles. The consensus is that, as neither term is covered at food, there is no benefit in redirecting there. Wittle is retargeted because it could be a plausible misspelling for whittle, which is a dab page, however because there was no such plausible typo to redirect to for wittles, it is deleted. Jenks24 (talk) 11:46, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting hits that this is "baby language" for little and a misspelling for whittle, but nothing relating this to food. Should this go somewhere? -- Tavix (talk) 02:02, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Then that should be explained somewhere because as it stands now it's either confusing or a WP:SURPRISE for those who don't know that. -- Tavix (talk) 22:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:06, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. *V and W are transposed that way by Sam Weller (fictional character) in The Pickwick Papers, too. (But it's not a Wellerism). Si Trew (talk) 19:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wittles. [seems to be a WP:SURPRISE.] Rubbish computer 15:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since the previous relist, the group of recently-active participants on RFD has changed a bit. Consensus here could probably benefit from a few more participants.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. It is not a typo for "whittle" (there is no aspirant W in any pronunciation, for example, and W and H are far apart on my keyboards, so unlikely to be a slip in that way). Far more likely to be for "vittel". I feel, then, it is genuinely ambiguous, and either we DAB it as such or delete it as best left to the search engine. Si Trew (talk) 22:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, "aspirant" is not anything to do with phonetics but a rank in Eastern European armies. Where would that lie, for me to hatnote? Aspirated consonant, it seems. Si Trew (talk) 22:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Only in some accents is a distinction made between /w/ and /ʍ/ (or /wʰ/ if you prefer) so whether* a word starts "w" or "wh" is not predictable based on pronunciation and typos/spelling errors between them are very plausible. *Actually "whether" and "weather" being homophones is a good example of this). Thryduulf (talk) 22:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "wh" in southern English accents such as mine are not aspirated, in northern English and Scottish (not Scots) accents they tend to be moreso. Nevertheless, "wh" or "w" is unlikely to be confused with "v", so I think we are going around the houses here. "whether" and "weather" do indeed serve as a good bellwether for that :) But since "Wittle" has no "Wh", nobody would aspirate it in any dialect; they might aspirate "whittle". Si Trew (talk) 22:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While we're at it, as baby language (or Tweetie Pie) it would mean little. Wittle pwetty baby. Voiced by the great Mel Blanc, of course. Si Trew (talk) 22:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Pacers

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 Pacer. The consensus is that from a worldwide and historical point of view, the Indiana Pacers is not the primary topic. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 18:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I believe the current target is correct, it seems that there has been a bit of a dispute about it as a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT over the course of its existence. Given that this is an encyclopedia that has a wider audience than just the USA, this redirect probably needs to should be retargetted to the disambiguation page Pacer. (For the record, given both points, I'm neutral.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC) (Rationale statement changed after reading Wbm1058's comment below.) Steel1943 (talk) 03:10, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Red Slash: Yeah, but is the Indiana Pacers' claim to this term a WP:WORLDWIDE opinion? I mean, I don't know how famous the connection of the redirect to team is, say, the United Kingdom where this team does not play. My thoughts on this compare to the consensus that was formed about the move request I started for White Castle (restaurant). (Move discussion) After the result of that discussion, it seems that there might be a possibility that the world wide view of the term might go above page views, such as what happened in that discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 23:33, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Named after" isn't a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC criterion. The titles Boston and Boston, Lincolnshire are not examples of systemic bias. --BDD (talk) 13:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's relevant. "York" is, in our terminology, a partial title match—no one calls New York City "York". By contrast, "Pacers" is an extremely common way of referring to the Indiana Pacers. New York City properly isn't listed at York (disambiguation); the Indiana Pacers properly always should be at Pacer. Whether or not we consider it a primary topic, that much is not in doubt. --BDD (talk) 13:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anywhere I wrote "oppose". Si Trew (talk) 21:42, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Red Slash, that's not what Si Trew said; he said that he first found a different subject on the 7th entry of the 1st page, not on the 7th page... Steel1943 (talk) 18:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The clue was "first page". Si Trew (talk) 21:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Two or three of the six are for named players from the Indiana Pacers (this is excluding Wikipedia), the rest kinda to fan pages. 'Tis much sport to see the engineer hoist with his own petard. (That's proper shakespeare that is.) I'll have a go via my UK tunnel but I doubt it will be different. Si Trew (talk) 21:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BDD, be careful what you ask for. My Google search results for "Rockets" are dominated by the basketball team. Surely the basketball team has greater long-term significance than the rockets we use to launch vehicles into space? Wbm1058 (talk) 13:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, search results have their limits. Compare to Apple and Apple Inc. The general idea of rockets are something most readers will be familiar with. What's a pacer, though? I couldn't've told you before this discussion. --BDD (talk) 13:48, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See Triple Crown of Harness Racing for Pacers. So, all the "keep" arguments here are based on search results, but you acknowledge that search results have their limits. Since I think most would concede the PT based on search alone, the arguments whether to keep or retarget should be based on the limits of search results. Packers is an example in support of "keep", but I would agree with that because the long-term meaning of "packers" is itself ambiguous. We have horse packers, household goods packers, and the meat packers that the football team is named for. So I suppose the question needing further exploration is whether "pacers", what with pace cars and such, is like that. More examples like Packers might help resolve this. Wbm1058 (talk) 15:36, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually my train of thought ran on pretty much similar lines. I would not have thought of a basketball team in the US as primary. Si Trew (talk) 22:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

How to study

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus, default to keep. Deryck C. 13:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTHOWTO. GZWDer (talk) 15:10, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

How to read a clock

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 refine to Clock face#Reading a modern clock face. Deryck C. 13:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTHOWTO. GZWDer (talk) 15:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

How to play basketball

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 Rules of basketball. Deryck C. 08:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTHOWTO. GZWDer (talk) 15:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, per comments below, delete due to ambiguity since it could refer to multiple different articles currently on Wikipedia. That, and I don't believe that we make disambiguation pages from statements such as these (which would be ... a WP:NOTHOWTO violation.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Etusivu

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) 13:26, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interlanguage soft redirects are generally considered to not be useful on the English Wikipedia. TexasAndroid (talk) 15:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wilma Alba Cal

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) 13:25, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interlanguage soft redirects are generally considered to not be useful on the English Wikipedia. TexasAndroid (talk) 15:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, the Spanish language article is very promotional, and I don't have enough skill in the language to sift through it. I did do a search for English-language sources which came up empty. Delete per WP:REDLINK in case someone else wants to try some time down the road. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Other liqueurs

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. JohnCD (talk) 21:06, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Basically ... Other than what? (The redirect currently targets List of liqueurs#Other liqueurs, but with the ambiguous use of the word "other" before arriving at the article, it's about impossible to be able to use this as a functional redirect with the expectation that this is exactly what the reader is looking for.) Steel1943 (talk) 04:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • That sort of proves how this redirect might not actually be useful, but this is hidden by a page view counter that is flooded by clicks on the link in the header at List of cocktails#Other liqueurs. In fact, I bet if that link was replaced with a piped link to the section, the hits on this redirect would start to decline. Steel1943 (talk) 14:49, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, let's test this. The only other possibility is that this link has "trained" some of the average readers of "cocktail" topics use that redirect to get to the list on List of liqueurs, but only because it was linked in the aforementioned section header. Steel1943 (talk) 14:54, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It looks like Steel1943's fix has dried up visits of this redirect, though RfD may be affecting it as well.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Porky pie

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus, default to keep. Deryck C. 08:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Makes no sense whatsoever. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

{Edit} Thus, it makes more sense to direct the term to Pork Pie (disambiguation). CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:42, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Gourmette chain

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 Si Trew for creating the article at Gourmette. --BDD (talk) 16:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From results I am finding per search engines, this term could refer to a chain bracelet or chain necklace. I would assume that there is a good retargetting option out there somewhere, but I'm not having luck finding it right now. Steel1943 (talk) 07:41, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, interesting. I've left a note at WP:GEM and at WP:EQUINE for more input. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:27, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh, it could be a necklace; redirect to jewelry if you want, I don't have a strong opinion there. I suggest just examining links and seeing what definition is prevalent. All I know is that it is not an English language synonym for a horse's curb chain, though I can see the parallels in design, so it makes some sense it's used that way in France, if it is. Montanabw(talk) 04:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh bollox, the more important one to do now is at fr:Bijou. Bijou in English is a DAB that doesn't mention it. This is going to tie me up with this translation, I bet. All for the love of you. Got coffee in, will have a go. I note Jewelry chain -> Jewellery chain so suits me if they are in Br. Eng; I've tagged that as ((R from other spelling)) (was untagged) but do we have more specific ((R from US spelling)) or ((R from English variant)) or ((R to UK spelling)) or something like that? Si Trew (talk) 21:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:(

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 DAB at Wikipedia:Parenthesis (non-admin closure) by Si Trew (talk) 23:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not sure what to say here. It appears to be an attempt at a sad face, but I frankly don't see the probability of using it. I myself only found it by accidentally hitting the parenthesis button while trying to type WP:*. -©2015 Compassionate727(Talk)(Contributions) 13:44, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

How to make a Mayday call

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus, default to keep. Deryck C. 09:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTHOWTO. GZWDer (talk) 15:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 13:37, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually on aircraft it is usually given twice not thrice. At least, under Civil Aviation Authority rules, but they don't let me in the cockpit any more for some reason... Si Trew (talk) 21:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You can't do it in semaphore flags -> Flag semaphore, btw, that would be TPQ, as any boy scout kno. Si Trew (talk) 14:58, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, as a lover of useless knowledge, Lord Nelson's flags were wrong at the Battle of Waterloo. Well at least according to the pictures. It does not say "England expects that every man shall do his duty". But what can one expect, when it was hoist by a Scotsman? I only mention this cos we whipped the frogs' arse in 1815 and I know it was only 200 years ago but they never dared try it again. Oh a world war or two, but what did they do for us honest, hardworking, english stock? OK, they provided the venue. Si Trew (talk) 15:02, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Or was that the Duke of Wellington I forget. I was never much good at history. I did metalwork. Si Trew (talk) 15:09, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, we don't have How to make an SOS call or dit dit dit, dar dar dar, dit dit dit although ... --- ... → SOS and is not rcatted. I don't know how one could rcat that, ((R from other language)), ((R from other alphabet))? Si Trew (talk) 05:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...---... should probably also be nominated, seems ambiguous. Could also be morse code and who knows how many other things. -©2015 Compassionate727(Talk)(Contributions) 18:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, perhaps we should have How not to make a mayday call, then. I suggest as a target Not Waving but Drowning. Si Trew (talk) 14:53, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

How to factor polynomials

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus, default to keep. Deryck C. 09:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTHOWTO. GZWDer (talk) 15:05, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 13:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I am an idiot, I was not disputing the existence of the target, and sorry if it sounded so. I should have just created the -ise form meself. Si Trew (talk) 23:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

How to fish

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. Some argue WP:NOTHOWTO; others argue that the target doesn't directly answer the question so the redirect is unhelpful. Both views support deletion. Deryck C. 09:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTHOWTO. GZWDer (talk) 15:05, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 13:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

How to control global warming

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus, default to keep. Deryck C. 13:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTHOWTO. GZWDer (talk) 15:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For background on how this article was created, see this. As it's a redirect and could be useful in linking a Wikipedia article to a relevant search engine result I don't think this page needs to be deleted. --TS 15:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 13:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

How to solve the Rubiks Cube

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. Some argue for WP:NOTHOWTO; others argued that there isn't a single ideal target for this title, and disambiguation isn't an obvious solution either. Deryck C. 09:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTHOWTO. GZWDer (talk) 15:15, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 13:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thryduulf, I think a disambiguation page with this title would be very silly. However, I wonder if material from Rubik's Cube#Solutions could be spun off into its own article. I think Optimal solutions for Rubik's Cube could remain as is, perhaps with a clearer title to make explicit that it's about algorithms, but I think it would definitely make sense to merge Layer by Layer and CFOP Method there. The redirects under discussion could then target that page, probably called Rubik's Cube solutions. This might be worthwhile even if the redirects are deleted. What do you think? --BDD (talk) 13:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd certainly support that proposal. Thryduulf (talk) 13:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I didn't make it plain. WP:NOTHOWTO, and How to Do the Rubik's Cube is a book, so WP:REDLINK. If that article is written then this can point to that. Until that happy day arrives, it is better red. The "the" is redundant, anyway, and How to solve Rubik's Cube and variants are all red. Si Trew (talk) 06:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Phantom song

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 Phantom#Music. Deryck C. 10:06, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong target. And quite generic also. "Phantom song" would have meant songs of The Phantom of the Opera until recent past. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

<-- Redirect based on premise that a user might look for Phantom (song). All currently extant links to Phantom (song) have as their intended target the page that is now Phantom (Justice song) (moved 07:06, 13 December 2011). -->
This comment and change was added by @JohnFromPinckney: with this edit. Si Trew (talk) 07:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Soap and water

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 Refined as ((R to section)) Soap#Action of soap WP:BOLD (non-admin closure) by Si Trew (talk) 01:41, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Since I thought we should all wash our mouths out after all this offensiveness, I also note that this one just goes to Soap, without rcat. ((R from phrase))? Soap and Water, Soap And Water are red. I don't think it helps to have this phrase just going to soap; it could be refined as ((R to section)) Soap#Action of soap, which is the only place water is mentioned. (Though that's a bad section title, "Action" would be more WP:CONCISE since patently it is of soap.)

Soapy water is also red. Si Trew (talk) 06:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. When I created this redirect back in 2003, there was no such thing as an rcat. If you want to add rcats, redirect to a section, and/or change the name of the section you redirect it too, then you should probably be bold and just do that. (I have no strong opinions about any of these options myself.) —Toby Bartels (talk) 15:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Um, offensiveness was red when I wrote it. User:Toby Bartels just created it today. I am not sure it is the business of RfD to encourage creating redirects, although this is undoubtedly useful. Marked as ((R to disambiguation page)). I started in 2009, sorry to be such a latecomer to the party. Si Trew (talk) 20:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not too big of a deal either way. I'll strike this to save a relist. -- Tavix (talk) 05:28, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Fucker

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. Resolved. --BDD (talk) 13:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Change rcat to ((R from agent)), which we have not got. (I think in some grammars these are called "actor"s). Currently it is ((R from plural)), which patently it is not.

Someone else probably has a better idea of what rcat it should be, but it is certainly not a plural, as it is currently marked. ((R from verb)) or ((R from verbal noun)) also not right. This is uncontroversial housekeeping but the redirect page is fully protected so I can't do it myself. Si Trew (talk) 06:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I cannot add the RfD notification to the page, because it is fully protected. Si Trew (talk) 06:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whatever we decide, do the same with Fuckers → Fuck, which is neither protected nor rcatted at all. That one could be R from plural of course, in addition to however we rcat the singular: but there's no point my doing so until we have consensus here. Si Trew (talk) 06:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Redirects to Profanity

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 varied. Despite the disparate entries here, it seems like there's a good deal of agreement. Since no single item here garnered a great deal of discussion, however, you may consider all of these decisions without prejudice against speedy (separate) nominations. The decisions are:

--BDD (talk) 22:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These redirects are examples of their target, but they are not identified as encyclopedic subjects at their targets, or most of them mentioned in the article. These are probably examples of a WP:NOTDIC violation unless encyclopedic material can be found about them to create content. Otherwise, I'd say weak retarget to Wiktionary those that have entries, but preferably delete for at least those without Wiktionary entries due to not being identified at their target. Steel1943 (talk) 02:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, veering off topic, I have never heard "dadgum", is that pronounced like dodgem or like "dad gum"? No idea what it means, perhaps not WP:WORLDWIDE (not that that matters.) Of course I can look it up, but the very point is that if people are looking it up here they should not get a WP:SURPRISE. Similarly "pussy shit", is this just a bad rendering/hearing of piece of shit → shit? Si Trew (talk) 06:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's like "dad gum", pronounced the same as "dad" meaning "father" and "gum" meaning the sticky product that gets chewed. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, that's quite good. My favourite still is (up)hill gardener for a male homosexual (because they shovel the shit back up). Si Trew (talk) 06:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Added a courtesy comment at target per MOS:LINK2SECT (to which apparently WP:LINK2SECT do not go). Si Trew (talk) 20:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Two redirects. Which is out of order, although Wikipedia:Deletion_policy has little to say on the subject of redirects. But once something comes to discussion, WP:CSD should not delete it. WP:BRD applies, and the D does not stand for delete.
There's no point reversing the delete now, but it is out of order to do so without even bothering to inform the discussion. Thank you for doing so. Despite what Twinkle says, it is not "Redirects for deletion", but "discussion". Shitface was deleted by User:Sphilbrick but seems to have a long history of being speedily deleted; Pussy shit under WP:R3 by User:Dweller. Why bother? Si Trew (talk) 20:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, it happens all the time; I've done it. If a page meets a speedy criterion then no amount of discussion will save it. That's what the speedy criteria are for - pages where it's so clear they should be deleted that discussion is not necessary or desirable. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you would like to have a proper discussion before making the decision to let me know I'll be happy to restore it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, "pissed" is WP:ENGVAR anyway (US English "annoyed", Br. Eng. "drunk"). I was pissed when I was in NYC and asked to bum a fag... Si Trew (talk) 05:13, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Pissed" now seems to go a disambig page for "Piss", which makes sense and I think pretty much everyone can get behind. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 13:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Fellation → Fellatio, so zour ejaculation is cast astray, there. I think both are WP:NOUNs in English (the first in Italian being a verb, in Latin a first person singular present indicative, and the second being the -tion formation an English; actor (article)/action (DAB) perhaps being a good example: a luvvie → (DAB) or ((-r|[[stage actor)) → actor does not "act" any more, the primary good old English, but "provides action"). See Fowler. WP:NOTDIC. Si Trew (talk) 05:31, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment. luvvie is a WP:TWODABS. I intend, one day, to correct that, since although it is an occasional section in Private Eye (magazine), to which I am a long-term subscriber, it is used more-generally to mean stage actors. I think it was Sir John Gielgud, a very down-at-earth man, who hated people calling him "luvvie" and so Private Eye persistently labelled him so, to his chagrin and delight. It was Beryl Reid, by the way, who told her over-zealous stage director "I think you are confusing me with one of those actresses who gives a fuck". Quoted by Clive James, I think, in his Unreliable Memoirs. Si Trew (talk) 05:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
More