< July 6
July 8 >

July 7

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 7, 2015.

Disbeliever

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. This is a bit of an unusual closure because nobody except Tavix argued for outright deletion. However, nobody wanted a "keep" close and it seemed that there's disagreement with every proposed alternative retarget. So I think "delete" is the appropriate outcome. "No consensus, default to delete" seems to be a significant theme of RfD closures. Deryck C. 10:54, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating this one separately from the other Kafir redirects (see: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 June 30#Non-Muslim). I think this is vague, especially because disbeliever isn't equivalent to Kafir (you can be a disbeliever in a lot of different things, for example). -- Tavix (talk) 21:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's better than mine. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:57, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's rather a stub, though, but when we get consensus we should add all of the them to ((Irreligion sidebar)). I disagree that just not believing in something is the same thing as actively rejecting the belief in that thing, which is why "dis-" and "un-" (or "ir-") mean different things. F'rexample, to be disinterested (having no bias, no vested interest) and uninterested (bored) are different things. 20:26, 1 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonTrew (talk • contribs)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 20:00, 7 July 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.

Skulblaka

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: Thanks for making it official so I can just glance the page and know there is consensus to delete.) Deryck C. 10:49, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neither are mentioned at the target. I'm not sure if these are examples of particular dragons but with no context in the target article these should be deleted. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that skulblaka was created with the edit summary "Feel free to delete this if you want". However it was created right around the time that the film adaptation of one of the Inheritance Cycle novels was released, so that's probably relevant. But if it's not mentioned somewhere then it's probably not worth keeping. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:46, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I had forgotten all about this. I was only 16 years old when I made that redirect page in March 2007. But it's true, "Skulblaka" does mean "dragon" (literally "scale flapper") in the Ancient Language of The Inheritance Cycle. See here. Yes, you can delete "Skulblaka" if you want, even as a redirect. But might I offer a different solution? Have it redirect to The Inheritance Cycle instead of Dragon. I mean, anyone who types searching for Skulblaka on Wikipedia is probably already going to know what it is and means. Dogman15 (talk) 03:37, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, Dogman15, and that's the problem. Since "skulblaka" isn't explained or mentioned at The Inheritance Cycle, it would only be of use to people who already know about the cycle (and thus would know how to get to the page anyway). Anyone looking to figure out what "skulblaka" means (who didn't already know) would be disappointed. --BDD (talk) 13:13, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(You don't really have to link my name and alert me. I'll check this page regularly.) So what would you like to do? Do we take into consideration people who are using Wikipedia instead of Google for some reason to find out what a strange word means? I don't see how anyone would learn about the existence of the word skulblaka without knowing about the Inheritance Cycle. Dogman15 (talk) 18:15, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? Google can be a hodgepodge of results, while we're often fairly reliable if someone's trying to learn about a new concept. How would someone know "skulblaka" without knowing about the Inheritance Cycle? I don't know. Maybe they see it in fan fiction, or they see someone use it as a screen name. But more importantly, I think we're agreeing that most users searching for this term do know what the Inheritance Cycle is. So the redirect isn't adding anything for them. --BDD (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I don't even care what happens to the page anymore. This was eight years ago when I was a novice at editing and policies. Have fun duking it out, guys. ;) Dogman15 (talk) 18:25, 10 July 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.

勞工貴族

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, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a Chinese topic. Gorobay (talk) 18:35, 7 July 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: Continuum

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 as unopposed. Deryck C. 10:45, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like this could refer to a few things. Retargeting to Star Trek: The Q Continuum would be an improvement but seems imperfect. Q Continuum itself redirects to Q (Star Trek), which doesn't seem a good target. There's always deletion. --BDD (talk) 15:49, 7 July 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.

Sonic shower

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. Deryck C. 10:45, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTWIKIA; not mentioned in the target article or anywhere else. BDD (talk) 15:48, 7 July 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.

List of Star Trek writers

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. Deryck C. 10:43, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This was a list until December; the target article names a few Star Trek writers, of course, but not most. And I don't think we have such a dedicated list anywhere else. Delete or restore? --BDD (talk) 15:44, 7 July 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.

📳

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 between retargeting and deleting, default to delete. Although I do note, not in an admin capacity, that the confusion behind this discussion comes from the general ambiguity as to whether vibrate mode is a subset of silent mode. Deryck C. 10:42, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me to be better suited to Vibrating alert. Also looks different depending on font, and I'm not sure what that version is supposed to represent. Adam9007 (talk) 15:14, 7 July 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.

Clean vocals

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 Screaming (music) as ((R from antonym)), without prejudice against restoration of article. Deryck C. 10:58, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This was formerly an article before it was PRODded and redirected. Now it's what I call a condescending redirect—a reader searching for "Clean vocals" almost certainly knows what singing is, and the more specific subject isn't mentioned at all in that article. BDD (talk) 14:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But if the phrase is only ever (or mostly) used in the context of certain genres of music, shouldn't it go to a more specific article? It would be worth giving it some attention in the screaming article. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to do that, then go for it. At the moment, it might be better off to have it deleted because it isn't mentioned at either place. -- Tavix (talk) 19:36, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe death growl is better? It mentions "unclean vocals" as a bolded alternate name right in the lede, although unclean vocals does not redirect there. "Clean vocals" is mentioned in the metalcore section of the screaming article, too. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:08, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That would work too. It was PRODded a few years back but it seems like something we could write about. I'll leave a note at WP:METAL, although the project seems to be not very active. In the meantime, since "clean vocals" is actually littered throughout screaming (music), I added a blurb about it to the lede. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:28, 13 July 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.

Social affairs

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 Ministry of Social Affairs, which does seem to satistfy everybody's suggestions. Deryck C. 10:38, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I recently fulfilled a WP:AFC/R request from 88Connor88 to redirect Social Affairs to Social work. I did so, but I think both of these would be better off retargeted to Social issue, since "affair" has a political connotation. Compare to International affairs, which redirects to International relations. --BDD (talk) 15:30, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to DAB. We have at Minister of Social Affairs but that → List of health departments and ministries. We also have (which are not listed on that list, nor any other ministers or ministrys):
It's a start. Si Trew (talk) 19:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good argument for dabifying Minister of Social Affairs, Ministry of Social Affairs, or a similar title. Those could be referred to simply as "Social Affairs", I suppose, but a page with that title that just lists ministries would be at least a bit ASTONISHing. --BDD (talk) 19:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"What have you done?" cried Christine
You've wrecked the whole party machine!
To lie in the nude
Could be considered rude
But to lie in the House is obscene!
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:10, 7 July 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.

Floweredy

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. --BDD (talk) 13:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am doubting the usefulness of this redirect. A Google search reveals less than 1,000 ghits and I can't find a single notable usage of the term. I highly doubt someone searching for this will want to be taken to a general article on flowers. It's not mentioned at the targeted article and there are no incoming links. Delete as we are not a dictionary. -- Tavix (talk) 15:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I just added Flowerdy to the discussion. The stats mentioned in the rationale only apply to Floweredy. -- Tavix (talk) 17:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't mean notable in the WP:NOTABLE (wiki-legal) sense, I mean it literally as in: "worthy of note." Also, this is a much different word than "floral." Floral is used 35 times at Flower whereas the words that I nominated aren't used at all. It's a very obscure word, a Google books search only gave me 126 results (which includes forms like Flower Edy). WP:RFD#D8 would apply here. -- Tavix (talk) 21:03, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well I picked a beautiful pink rose today, to put in my buttonhole, so the world is at peace, now. Si Trew (talk) 22:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, now I recall my irrelevance. Bob Flowerdew is a presenter on Gardener's Question Time. Whether that is useful or not I don't know but that was going through me head for three days now. Si Trew (talk) 15:14, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 13:23, 7 July 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.

Tweenbrain

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. Not an especially strong consensus, but the lack of the term at the target article makes deletion seem reasonable. --BDD (talk) 13:42, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very unlikely redirect. Not a standard or real term. I cannot find any results on Google scholar other than "Be-tween brain", where "-" is used for a new line.

Although listed on dictionary ([1]) this is a potentially frustrating redirect for readers, the majority of whom will expect something on adolescent development (See tween).

I propose deletion. Tom (LT) (talk) 09:55, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We discussed this one on Wiktionary too. It is a real term, though perhaps dated, and always seems to begin with an apostrophe, i.e. 'tweenbrain. A Google Books search finds some usage. Equinox (talk) 19:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well old bean where is the hyphen? Webster link is essentially a redlink that says "What made you look up tween-brain". ((R from other punctuation)) possibly, but I think it would be bad to set a precedent that apostrophes are acceptable in English Wikipedia. (They're very common at the starts of words in Dutch language, particularly 't "the"). Si Trew (talk) 09:28, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By the way it should be biencephalon. Di- is Latin, Bi- Greek. We don't have the stub noun, and WP:RFOREIGN, WP:NOTENGLISH. Si Trew (talk) 09:33, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Am I a liar? When this was listed it had apos at the front ''Tweenbrain: or was that another listing? I don't mind being wrong but I'm an idiot if I am arguing the wrong thing. Now, don't mess with Mr. In-Between.(Roy Fox and his Orchestra). Si Trew (talk) 09:37, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SimonTrew singing?

Because you have to

Accen-chuate the positve
Elimintate the negative
Stand firm on the alternative
Don't mess with Mr. In-Between
You gotta spread joy out to the maximum
Bring gloom down to the minumun
Otherwise lies and pandemonium are liable to walk across the scene

(Andrews Sisters now)

To illustrate, my last remark,
Jonah in the whale, Noah in the ark
What did they do, well, when everything looked so dark?
Well they said they had to...
Accen-chuate the postive. Eliminate the negative. Latch on to the affirmative, don't mess with Mr. In-Between.

NO DO NOT MESS WITH MR IN-BETWEEN. (Fall out chorus by the wonderful Inkspots). Si Trew (talk) 09:46, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 13:23, 7 July 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.

🎱

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 between keep and delete, default to keep. Deryck C. 10:35, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure about this, but depending on the font used, I think this could refer specifically to Eight-ball. Maybe disambiguate? Adam9007 (talk) 03:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ir also looked closer to the image on the rack article when I used Chrome on my PC with Windows 7.--69.157.254.210 (talk) 04:48, 8 July 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.

🏣

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 default to delete as there is consensus to change but no consensus of outcome. Deryck C. 10:32, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this refers to just any Post Office, but specifically Japanese ones (and possibly other East Asian ones, but I'm not sure, Japanese certainly). According to this (it is the same character; it may look different depending on the font used), this is the case. Maybe retarget to Japan Post, or Japanese postal mark, as this redirect (which looks just like this emoji) does? Adam9007 (talk) 02:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to ╤, yeah. That character is BOX DRAWINGS DOWN SINGLE AND HORIZONTAL DOUBLE. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:24, 7 July 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