< August 27
August 29 >

August 28

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 28, 2015.

M. Night Shyamalanadingdong

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 both speedy deleted per criterion G10 by different administrators. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steel1943 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 29 August 2015

Delete per WP:R#D3 because this is a disparaging redirect only meant to ridicule this director's name and/or his films. Note that ding dong is a pejorative that means "an idiot". -- Tavix (talk) 23:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Opabinia regalis: I noticed you deleted one of these and not the other. If you think the other one to be G10, could you delete it so this can be closed? If not, could you explain why you believe them to be different? Thanks. -- Tavix (talk) 17:38, 29 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.

Hitman for Hire

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 on the first one, essentially, so retarget to Contract killing. Feel free to nominate that one separately. Delete the others, straightforwardly. --BDD (talk) 13:51, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:R#D2. No mentions of this film at the target article. -- Tavix (talk) 23:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had also considered bounty hunter but wasn't sure if it was a well enough established term. -- Tavix (talk) 05:46, 29 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.

What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? (2014 film)

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) 13:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:R#D2. There is a 1962 film and a 1991 film, but nothing from 2014 or 2015. -- Tavix (talk) 23:10, 28 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.

2017 Stanley Cup playoffs

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) 13:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:R#D2. Someone searching for this would want specific information about the 2017 Stanley Cup playoffs. However, they would be disappointed because the target article doesn't provide any of this information. It's better to keep this red so we don't get anyone's hopes up in the meantime. -- Tavix (talk) 22:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with the creator aside, there is a pretty strong consensus here that redirects of that type are not helpful. There are a few 2016/7 redirects that have gone through RFD recently and they've all been closed as delete. For example: 2016 Australian Open, 2016 French Open, 2016 New York Yankees season, 2017 Indian Premier League, 2017 AFC Champions League, etc. -- Tavix (talk) 23:17, 28 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.

Pier-Olivier Pelletier

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) 13:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:XY. Multiple potential targets with no way to determine what the reader would be expecting to find. Yet another bad faith creation of Dolovis (talk · contribs), who has wasted a tremendous amount of community time with similar redirects, all inevitably deleted. Also nominating Chris Durand (ice hockey) for the same reason. Resolute 22:11, 28 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.

Pennsylvanien

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 Pennsylvanian per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 19:45, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arguably, there is a connection between German and Pennsylvania. But I think it might make more sense to treat this as a misspelling of Pennsylvanian and retarget there. That page, of course, does link to Pennsylvania. Thoughts? BDD (talk) 20:56, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, even if there are other Pennsylvanias (I don't know) I think this is likely to be the most well-known usage among English speakers, so WORLDWIDE isn't an issue. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...I think we both misread BDD's nomination statement... Steel1943 (talk) 00:17, 29 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.

Star Trek Expanded Universe

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 restore article. --BDD (talk) 13:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is not mentioned in the target article. Per the article's history, it seems that the redirect was formally an article that was blanked/redirected for essentially being a WP:NOTWIKIA violation. Steel1943 (talk) 23:38, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually, per the target article and the article you referenced, that is not the case: the article Star Trek spin-off fiction lists declared "non-canon" works, but per the article Expanded universe, that term "expanded universe" refers to "canon" works. Per this comparison, the nominated redirect refers to the opposite concept as presented in its target, and thus is treading a fine line in regards to misinterpretation. Steel1943 (talk) 01:42, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It seems clear that Star Trek has an expanded universe. I suggest further discussion address the questions of the likeliness of this as a search term and whether the target article addresses what a reader would be seeking with this term. Which other pages are relevant, if any?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Restore and then move to Star Trek expanded universe per MOS:CAPS. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:57, 29 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 storylines in Star Trek

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) 13:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects' titles are unclear on what Star Trek storylines they are intended to exclude. Steel1943 (talk) 23:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think it's fairly clear that it is non-canon stories. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]
...Unless the reader is at the time looking at these redirects' current target, then wants to look up "Other storylines in Star Trek", then arrives back at that page. These redirects have the potential to create confusing circular references to itself. Steel1943 (talk) 15:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:23, 28 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 use

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) 21:38, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if there is any good retargetting option for this in the article space. I can only see this redirect being useful as a WP:CNR, but it may be better to serve readers by having it deleted. Steel1943 (talk) 03:13, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When does this vagueness bother you or anyone else? -DePiep (talk) 18:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@DePiep: Someone types "other use" into the search bar. A redirect forces them to the page Disambiguation (disambiguation). How do we know that is what they want? It's confusing, especially because there isn't any mention of "other use" there so they'll end up disappointed or frustrated. There are several other things that "other use" could refer to and we can't know what someone would want. -- Tavix (talk) 18:59, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"A redirect forces them" - No, it leads them to that page. That is how redirects help. Now AFAIK, "disambiguation" is a synonym for "other use", so the reader is helped out :-). And here is the check: if "other use" does have other meanings, we should have a page Other use (disambiguation). -DePiep (talk) 19:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@DePiep: In Wikipedia, other use means disambiguation, but that's not always the case elsewhere. I gave an example in my deletion rationale. The problem with Other use (disambiguation) is that it would read like a dictionary, by defining all possible meanings and we don't do that per WP:NOTDIC. It does force them to that page because there aren't any other options given. If this were deleted, it would take someone to a search page, they would find what they're looking for, and move on with their life without being confused or frustrated that they were pigeonholed into an irrelevant disambiguation. -- Tavix (talk) 19:13, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If Wikipedia has no other definitions defined for "Other use", then you point is moot: there is no confusion. If there are other meanings, as you state, then the dab page is the way to link to them. WP does not have to cater for non-encyclopedic possible other meanings. IOW, that "frustration" is caused by the fact that an other expected (or possible) meaning is not present in WP. Not the fault of the redirect. (This also answers the WP:nodict: indeed. But a dab page is not a dictionary, it does wikilink). -DePiep (talk) 19:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How does that make my point moot? There is confusion because the term is vague. That's what I'm saying. If there were other ARTICLES, then you link them with a disambiguation. However, the case we have here is that there are other DEFINITIONS of the term. You don't create a disambiguation for that, per WP:NOTDIC. I distinguish between the terms "vague" and "ambiguous". When something is "ambiguous", it means there are multiple meanings or interpretions. You can fix this and make it unambiguous with a disambiguation page. When something is "vague", it's unclear and imprecise, and a disambiguation couldn't help fix that. -- Tavix (talk) 19:33, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What vagueness are you talking about? -DePiep (talk) 20:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Other use" has other uses besides "disambiguation" and we can't assume someone is looking for "disambiguation" when they're actually looking for an other use of "other use". -- Tavix (talk) 20:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So I can close the circle: if those other meanings are encyclopedic (=in WP), then go WP:DAB. If not present in WP, then not relevant and not an argument. (Third option: you know of other meanings, not in WP: irrelevant, not a DICT). -DePiep (talk) 22:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Close, but not quite. If not present in WP, then it shouldn't be in a dab (WP:DABMENTION) and therefore should be deleted due to confusion (WP:R#D2) because there's no mention of the term in the dab. -- Tavix (talk) 22:59, 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) 19:11, 28 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.

New army sword

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 New army sword to Guntō#Shin guntō (new military sword); delete Neo army sword. Deryck C. 21:02, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Yes, gun 軍 is best translated "military", but the default sense is "army". Deryck C. 21:02, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article, and I'm unable to find any references via search engines that ties this redirect's phrase with any specific subject. Steel1943 (talk) 19:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • @BDD: Dang, you beat me to it! I was about to make this nomination "magically disappear" after I noticed this myself, but ahh ... can't do that now! Anyways, I'll keep this open since the verdict may be out on this being a proper translation, so we shall see. Steel1943 (talk) 19:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind if you want to make it disappear. I think this is probably legitimate. I was going to add Neo army sword, but was less certain of that one. A quick search shows that it is used, however, though not a great deal. --BDD (talk) 19:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I actually have the same concern about the "army vs. military" translation myself. In fact, I'll go ahead and bundle Neo army sword with this nomination. Steel1943 (talk) 19:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...But delete "neo army sword" - that's clearly invented. The prefix "neo-" is well out of place in a discussion of Japanese things. Stats show it's not in use. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe retarget "neo army sword" to Neo (The Matrix)#Powers and abilities where it discusses Neo's ability to stop a sword with the edge of his hand. That's pretty far-flung, though, and as I recall the sword he stopped was a comically-oversized claymore and not anything remotely Japanese. But it's been some time since I saw the movie. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) "neo army sword" -wikipedia returns very few results, but a couple look like reliable sources. I really don't know any Japanese, so I don't know if the prefix "neo" might be a better translation than just "new". I think these two should probably match each other. --BDD (talk) 19:44, 28 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 the universe was created

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. 21:04, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a QA site. GZWDer (talk) 05:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 16:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer to retarget since cosmogony describes the study of the origin of the universe, but does not describe the universe's formation (as we currently know it) except with a link to Big Bang, so it does not address "how the universe was created". It would work fine if we retargeted to Big Bang also. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 11:53, 30 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 radiation affects Perceived temperature

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 to delete. WP:INVOLVED/WP:IAR close given nomination backlog. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 22:51, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a QA site. GZWDer (talk) 05:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I wouldn't have "invoked" it if I didn't read it. My comment about "Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not" referring to Wikipedia "as a whole" still stands. Anyone can debate the interpretation of that page in discussion (as apparently, we are doing here). If you want to invalidate any part of WP:WWIN to not apply to specific aspects of Wikipedia, feel free to start a discussion on its talk page. However, it looks like the discussion about specifically restricting WP:NOTFAQ from applying to redirects (on WP:WWIN's talk page) is approaching a WP:SNOW oppose close. Steel1943 (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you had read NOTFAQ, you would have discovered that it's unambiguously inapplicable here, in a way that no one who had read it could miss. There's no need to apply a footnote to it say it doesn't apply to redirects, any more than there's a need to apply a footnote to WP:CSD#G12 saying it doesn't apply to redirects. The substance of what it says makes it entirely unambiguous that it cannot. So, again, I implore you to read NOTFAQ before invoking it. WilyD 09:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 16:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps "radiation" is vague in the phrasing of the redirect, but that's only matching the article title. --BDD (talk) 20:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, but that doesn't affect my argument. It's possible that there are heating effects from other forms of radiation (in fact I think that we have articles about some of them) but this target does not address them. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think that might be a problem with the article though. Maybe an WP:AFD is in order? WP:NOT-FOR-GETTING-OTHER-PEOPLE-TO-DO-YOUR-HOMEWORK... -- Tavix (talk) 23:46, 28 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 internet use affects the human brain

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. A similar debate played out as the one below, but in this case the discussion leans slightly (but not overwhelmingly) towards the title being sufficiently unambiguous. WP:NOTFAQ was argued by a few others. Deryck C. 21:31, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a QA site. GZWDer (talk) 05:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I wouldn't have "invoked" it if I didn't read it. My comment about "Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not" referring to Wikipedia "as a whole" still stands. Anyone can debate the interpretation of that page in discussion (as apparently, we are doing here). If you want to invalidate any part of WP:WWIN to not apply to specific aspects of Wikipedia, feel free to start a discussion on its talk page. However, it looks like the discussion about specifically restricting WP:NOTFAQ from applying to redirects (on WP:WWIN's talk page) is approaching a WP:SNOW oppose close. Steel1943 (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you had read NOTFAQ, you would have discovered that it's unambiguously inapplicable here, in a way that no one who had read it could miss. There's no need to apply a footnote to it say it doesn't apply to redirects, any more than there's a need to apply a footnote to WP:CSD#G12 saying it doesn't apply to redirects. The substance of what it says makes it entirely unambiguous that it cannot. So, again, I implore you to read NOTFAQ before invoking it. WilyD 09:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 16:35, 28 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 internet use affects humans

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. The discussion gradually leant towards the consensus that this redirect title doesn't unambiguously point towards one topic on Wikipedia, and so should be deleted. Deryck C. 21:06, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a QA site. GZWDer (talk) 05:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I wouldn't have "invoked" it if I didn't read it. My comment about "Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not" referring to Wikipedia "as a whole" still stands. Anyone can debate the interpretation of that page in discussion (as apparently, we are doing here). If you want to invalidate any part of WP:WWIN to not apply to specific aspects of Wikipedia, feel free to start a discussion on its talk page. However, it looks like the discussion about specifically restricting WP:NOTFAQ from applying to redirects (on WP:WWIN's talk page) is approaching a WP:SNOW oppose close. Steel1943 (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you had read NOTFAQ, you would have discovered that it's unambiguously inapplicable here, in a way that no one who had read it could miss. There's no need to apply a footnote to it say it doesn't apply to redirects, any more than there's a need to apply a footnote to WP:CSD#G12 saying it doesn't apply to redirects. The substance of what it says makes it entirely unambigious that it cannot. So, again, I implore you to read NOTFAQ before invoking it. WilyD 09:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 16:35, 28 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 directness of sunlight causes warmer weather

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. Deryck C. 21:07, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a QA site. GZWDer (talk) 05:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 16:35, 28 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.

Cochrane Database Syst Rev

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 4#Cochrane Database Syst Rev

市区重建局

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 4#市区重建局

Tucking in (parenting, food)

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 delete as status quo ante bellum because these redirects were created recently to facilitate an RfD discussion. Deryck C. 21:12, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both per WP:NOUN, recently created (today) by User:Neelix as part of yesterday's discussion atWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 5#Tuck in, but since Tucking in is now a DAB page there is no need to disambiguate this way. Si Trew (talk) 05:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to find some WP:RS for the food sense. However, WP:NOTDIC. Tucking in is not mentioned at the bedtime article either, beyond a "declaration" (not really a definition) in the lede. Si Trew (talk) 05:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And looking at that, "tucking in" is not synonymous with bedtime, but refers more specifically to bed-making particularly while a person is in the bed. So I'm going to remove that definition from the lede. Si Trew (talk) 05:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a number of changes at Bedtime since this was listed, in particular I have renamed section "Etymology" since it wasn't, and linked a few things to more specific articles. diff here. Si Trew (talk) 06:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure ((R from unnecessary disambiguation)) is appropriate: it's not that Tucking in is an article (DAB pages aren't articles, are they?) nor that this redirects to that page. Si Trew (talk) 05:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I referenced the wrong Rcat tag. I fixed it above. Steel1943 (talk) 06:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I doff my hat to you: I wasn't sure, but anyone who admits a mistake (and leaves the evidence for all to see) is what Wikipedia is all about. I am not sure there is a hat-doffing emoji. Si Trew (talk) 16:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Steel: no comment on the redirect, but see Cambridge Dictionaries for eating. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I actually think that Tucking in should point to Bedtime with a hatnote referring to Eating if need be. (I'm going to state this on the other ongoing discussion.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 23:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 13:49, 28 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.

Qantas.jp

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 8#Qantas.jp

Fromagier

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. Deryck C. 22:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FORRED; cheesemaking (technically, "cheesemaker") is not a concept that is exclusive to French-speaking cultures. Steel1943 (talk) 20:27, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Ivanvector: I probably should have mentioned that also, the spelling might also be incorrect in the redirect. From what I am finding, the correct spelling is "fromager": "fromagier" may be a different word completely, but I am not for certain. Steel1943 (talk) 20:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, reading what you said, it seems like this redirect could be wrong as well since it seems like a "fromager" is a cheesemaker and a "fromagier" is a cheese connoisseur, which are two different roles. Steel1943 (talk) 20:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) It is not a real French word; the French words would be fromager or fromagère for a cheese maker (or merchant). Although -ier is a common suffix for professions. Also for fruit trees, apparently. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, researching a different thread here turned up turophile, which is a word for a cheese connoisseur derived from Greek. I don't know how that influences this discussion. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:16, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's some good advice. I'm not sure who that is directed towards though because I clearly didn't do that. I would highly recommend reading WP:FORRED thoroughly since this is at least the second or third time such a comment has been made implying an accusation of the such. Steel1943 (talk) 12:12, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since WilyD insists, again, that no rationale has been given, here is the rationale section from WP:FORRED. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 13:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rationale (copied from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Redirects_from_foreign_languages&oldid=674306999)

This is the English Wikipedia, and we serve English speakers. Having a large number of foreign language redirects presents problems for both our readers and editors.

The presence of foreign language redirects creates the false impression that you can navigate the English Wikipedia in another language. If, for example, we had a redirect from Bodem (Dutch) to soil, a Dutch speaker might get the impression that all of our articles have Dutch redirects. This could become more problematic if that Dutch reader searched from Klimaatverandering and found nothing. They might then assume that the English Wikipedia has no article on the topic, when we do.

The other problem is the differing meanings that languages give the same spelling. The word dam, in various languages, can mean stable, pond, checkers, price, and numerous other meanings: linguists call these false friends. None of these meanings belong at Dam (disambiguation), so none would be appropriate as a redirect if English didn't have such a word.

Finally, the only language we can rely on our editors speaking is English. Often it requires a strong working knowledge of a language to evaluate and understand foreign-language redirects - for example, being able to identify that a Chinese redirect is using the wrong character, or a Romanian redirect has an incorrect diacritical mark that looks almost identical to the correct one.[1] These types of problems are found immediately by all of our users for English redirects, but for foreign redirects, this is not the case. Also, redirects need maintenance, as pages change titles, get merged, or the redirects get re-targeted. We rely on editors to watch for errors on redirects, but this is much harder to do if you don't know the language.

References

  1. ^ An additional problem worth mentioning is the accidental inclusion of offensive terms. We wouldn't expect a Chinese speaker to recognize that getting a single letter wrong in shot results in an offensive word, so how could we expect English speakers to recognize an offensive term in Chinese?
  • I've read FORRED, it doesn't provide any reasons it would be beneficial to Wikipedia to delete this redirect. Perhaps "rationalisations", but even that's generous to the total absence of reasoning going on there. WilyD 08:52, 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) 22:53, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 13:16, 28 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.

U mad

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. I've converted this into a short article. --BDD (talk) 18:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Likely to make a reader mad, as it's not used or discussed at the target article. --BDD (talk) 22:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. I think a U mad article could be feasible—KYM documents its usage on The O'Reilly Factor, which IMO gives it much more of a real-world impact than your average meme. My inclination would be to try an article first, which could potentially be merged elsewhere if it's not judged to be independently notable. --BDD (talk) 22:25, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, usage on that tv show seems to have originated the meme (I wouldn't always trust knowyourmeme, but this one looks well-sourced), which then became persistent on its own. And it predates that rap single from 2015 by far. Just wanted to bring that up so that a future article doesn't get dismissed right away based on a retarget decided now. Rh73 (talk) 00:25, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 13:05, 28 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.

Democratic

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 Democrat. Wbm1058 (talk) 12:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Democratic" can refer to democracy generally, but my search results show the term used much more frequently to refer to a Democratic Party, most notably the Democratic Party (United States). I don't think there's a primary target for this (and if there it, it'd probably be the party page), so it should be retargeted to Democrat, which is a disambiguation that lists both targets (and then some). -- Tavix (talk) 22:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...the disambiguation page at democrat accomplishes that. -- Tavix (talk) 14:35, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Tavix, I think the IP is suggesting to merge the disambiguation pages together. Steel1943 (talk) 16:08, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that would be a helpful merge, since there are many proper noun meanings of each. bd2412 T 16:36, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
...Agreed. Steel1943 (talk) 17:54, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Commment. Neither is a proper noun, adn "democratic" is an adjective. WP:NOUN. But I imagine too useful to delete. Si Trew (talk) 19:16, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Democratic" gets 50+ page views per day, so I think deleting it would do more harm than good. At least when you retarget to Democrat, it lists all possible meanings of "Democratic" already, including the other dab mentioned above. -- Tavix (talk) 15:50, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 23:03, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think BDD's point, raised towards the end of this discussion, needs to be debated before this RfD is closed. Deryck C. 13:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 13:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Democratic Party (United States), right? I wonder if I should bite another bullet and make a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC claim there. --BDD (talk) 13:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, after fixing about 200 mislinks with [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democratic]], we're down to about 450 links which are probably mostly intended for Democracy. If we stop now, then in a few more years we'll likely have another 200 mislinks intended for the US political party to fix. What I mean by biting the bullet is to take the extra time now to pipe most of those 450 links–or remove the links as WP:OVERLINKs to an everyday English word–so that hopefully we won't have to keep perpetually fixing mislinks for the political party. Wbm1058 (talk) 23:17, 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.

Lists of endangered languages/UNESCO definitions

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 4#Lists of endangered languages/UNESCO definitions

Redirect template

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) 13:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a weird redirect in that none of the entries at the target are named/titled "redirect template." However, there's a hatnote at the top of the page saying that "redirect template" redirects there and gives a few project space options. I don't understand why it's done like that. It'd probably make more sense to have this as a CNR to Wikipedia:Template messages/Redirect pages (the target of Wikipedia:Redirect template and have the hatnote there. However, I'm not a fan of WP:CNRs (see the "arguments to delete" section), so I'm leaning to delete this, but am open for discussion. -- Tavix (talk) 04:07, 28 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.
More