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 move .22 (disambiguation) to .22 caliber, retarget .22 there and switch the ((dab)) tag for an ((SIA)) tag. – Wbm1058 (talk) 16:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• .22 → .22 Long Rifle  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• .22 calibre → .22 Long Rifle  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] Added by Si Trew (talk) 11:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• .22 caliber → .22 (disambiguation)  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I think that .22 should redirect to the .22 (disambiguation) page not .22 Long Rifle. ".22" is a number, not necessarily firearm ammunition. I made an initial change but was reverted by another editor. MartinezMD (talk) 23:30, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I started this and concur with the above change. MartinezMD also changed the .22 caliber redirect likewise, and I concur with that as well. Neither .22 nor .22 caliber should redirect to .22 Long Rifle simply because that is the most common .22 caliber round. Concisely stated, a caliber is not a specific round/cartridge but a bullet diameter, and we should not equate the two in this manner. If a source says a .22 caliber gun was used in a shooting, it would be flirting with WP:NOR to redirect that to .22 Long Rifle. It would also be downright incorrect in some cases, such as when the gun was a pocket pistol or other type chambered for .22 Short.
The first entry at .22 (disambiguation) is .22 Long Rifle, and it states that that is the most common variety. If the reader wishes to make the assumption, he is free to do so, and the .22 Long Rifle article is then but one click away; but we should not make the assumption for him.
.22 Short begins with the sentence: ".22 Short is a variety of .22 caliber (5.6 mm) rimfire ammunition." If .22 caliber redirects to .22 Long Rifle, what happens if you make a link out of .22 caliber in that sentence?
.22 is simply short for .22 caliber so the considerations are the same in my view. 72.198.26.226 (talk) 23:44, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per nom. ONR (talk) 01:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per me. 72.198.26.226 (talk) 01:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Although .22 caliber redirects to the DAB at .22 (disambiguation), the alternative spelling .22 calibre redirects to .22 Long Rifle. I've added it to the nom. Si Trew (talk) 11:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• .22 (disambiguation) needs to be converted to a WP:DABCONCEPT page, since it is merely an index of firearms using .22 caliber ammunition. bd2412 T 19:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
• Note: I added .22 caliber to the nomination since .22 calibre was added, and it doesn't make sense for one to be listed here but not the other. Steel1943 (talk) 20:29, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case, move .22 (disambiguation) to .22 caliber, retarget .22 there and switch the ((dab)) tag for an ((SIA)) tag. Let me know, and I'll take care of the rest of the conversion. bd2412 T 20:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
• I support bd2412's proposal. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:37, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I support bd2412's proposal. I was 72.198.26.226 until I logged in, sorry. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:09, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support BD2412's proposal, for the reasons he gave. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:22, 15 November 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 delete. JohnCD (talk) 20:20, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Atheangelism → Antitheism  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect has a different flavor than the other Atheistic evangelism redirects so I decided to nominate it separately. I'm not seeing much use for it, so it's probably a WP:NEOLOGISM that should be deleted under WP:R#D8. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete' per Tavix. Si Trew (talk) 03:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No one will look for this made-up word. bd2412 T 19:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:54, 12 November 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 retarget to List of the heaviest people. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Worlds fattest man → Manuel Uribe  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Retarget to List of the heaviest people. Subject to change, the list should cover all who have articles, living or dead. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 02:16, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Retarget to List of the heaviest people, which World's fattest man goes to, as ((R from incorrect punctuation)). Incongruously, World's fattest woman also goes there, but not World's fattest person. Forms without the apos, Worlds fattest woman and Worlds fattest person, are also red (and should be). I was leaning to delete on the grounds of symmetry, but this gets two or three hits a day on average. Si Trew (talk) 04:00, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to List of the heaviest people per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 04:38, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per above. ONR (talk) 01:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per above; list covers the WP:XY-ness of this. Does a reader typing this want the heaviest man ever or the heaviest man living? Manuel Uribe is neither, by the way. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:57, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per above; as this changes from time to time. Legacypac (talk) 23:54, 11 November 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 keep. That is, there's nothing wrong with the redirect. While moves can occur as a result of RfD, I don't find consensus either way on that question here. No prejudice against an RM to investigate further. --BDD (talk) 15:14, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Carl Thompson (died 2015) → Carl Thompson (heavy person)  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The manner in which this is disambiguated is not useful. Update 01:12, 9 November 2015 (UTC): Move back per below, though there might be forum issues, as WP:RM would be the proper venue (at the least it wouldn't be a common outcome).—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 02:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete._{struck by Si Trew (talk) 21:04, 8 November 2015 (UTC)} The two uses in articles were both in "See also" sections, and were piped, so without prejudice I changed them to pipe straight to the article. For the article itself, the dab "(heavy person)" seems a bit clumsy, but can think of no better. ("heavy man" is perhaps marginally better.) Si Trew (talk) 03:49, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep it is useful, since the date of death is one way of identifying people in the real world (ie. outside Wikipedia). And it is factually correct, this man died in 2015. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:07, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as plausible disambiguation per WP:NCPDAB (minus the occupation). It's not wrong, so why delete? Steel1943 (talk) 16:38, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  @Steel1943: While I dislike the "(heavy person)" disambiguation, as it is in use: For historical figures when there is no dominant qualifier (at least no practical one), the descriptor may be omitted in favour of a single use of the date of birth or death. It is my understanding that the birth or death date should only be used in cases where no other qualifier is viable, not as a plausible redirect. That aside, Paul Mason (heavy person) seems to be the only other article to use the "(heavy person)", which I moved [1]. I'd support a move back to Carl Thompson (died 2015), if the matter was raised elsewhere.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 19:46, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Godsy: You are actually referring to what the actual title of the article should be. Per most other variations of what the article could be title per naming conventions, redirects are perfectly valid. That, and I personally think that the article's current disambiguator is so unlikely that the redirect is probably more useful than the article's current title. Maybe a move request is necessary... Steel1943 (talk) 20:35, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment. A move makes sense, but. "(obese man)" is perhaps better than "(heavy person)", which seems unnecessarily vague; Obesity#Classification gives a definition, although of course not a universally-accepted one. Si Trew (talk) 21:04, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Move back. Disambiguating with "(died 2015)" is more neutral, though there probably does exist a better name than either option. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 21:22, 08 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Move back better name. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:38, 8 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  
• Move back of the two options this appears to be thr better choice.--65.94.253.102 (talk) 23:55, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  There are other options. Si Trew (talk) 08:41, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - disambiguating by what he's known for is better than disambiguating by when he died, but both are valid disambiguation. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:59, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree, but then we should reverse the redirect. Si Trew (talk)

I think you don't agree, then. Reversing it makes his date of death the primary disambiguator. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:26, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If people think "heavy person" isn't neutral, then maybe we should use something different, such as "(Kent)" or "(record holder)" -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:41, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I think it's quite neutral, if something is the heaviest member of its class, I think it is fair to call it heavy. I just think it's rather clumsy/ugly, but I can't think of anything better, except I prefer "man" to "person" when the subject self-identified as male. I'm not that bothered, but if we're going to move it somewhere, we might as well discuss where. Si Trew (talk) 12:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Personally, I don't have any opinions on the topic, I was just trying to come up with "better" disambiguators. The entire article is about him being heavy, but I guess article titles are a little more sensitive? 20:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC) Preceding comment added by Tavix

• Comment. If we can't even find a strong disambiguator, I have notability concerns. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 18:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't. He was at one time a superlative something (the most something) and people who meet that criteria almost always meet WP:GNG. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:26, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment a super common name, I'd think multiple people by this name died in 2015. Legacypac (talk) 23:58, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are any of them notable enough for an article though?--65.94.253.102 (talk) 01:24, 12 November 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 retarget the last to WUT, all others to What. (non-admin closure) by Si Trew (talk) 09:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• What? → Second baseman  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• WHAT → Second baseman  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• What's → Second baseman  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• What (disambiguation) → Second baseman  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Wut → Second baseman  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Why do all these articles link here? Shouldn't they be pointing to dab pages? A Gizmo Guru (talk) 05:06, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• REtarget all to what, a disambiguation page; the disambiguation page was vandalized in September 2015, and the redirectbot retargeted according to the vandalism. This is clearly deducible from the "(disambiguation)" redirect. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Should be a fairly obvious retarget for most of them, but I'd like to propose Wut be retargeted to WUT. -- Tavix ^(talk) 06:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• They presumably exist because of Who's on First?. Retarget to disambiguation. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 09:44, 08 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• All of these redirects were retargeted to Second baseman as a result of correcting double redirects caused by this edit. I say that all of these redirects should be speedy retargeted (with the exception of Wut since I don't think it was right to begin with and support Tavix's option) back to What as vandalism reversion/edits as a result of no consensus. Steel1943 (talk) 22:24, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy retarget per Steel1943, but include "wut" - internet-speak for "what", as in, for example "lolwut". All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  
• Retarget "wut" to WUT per Tavix. Retarget the rest to what --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:37, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per nom. There's no reason for "what" to point to "second baseman" even with the Who's On First connection. ONR (talk) 01:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Clarification to A Gizmo Guru, KarasuGamma and Old Naval Rooftops: Would you prefer wut being retargeted to what or WUT? That's really the only question that remains here. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:49, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • WUT. ONR (talk) 06:26, 9 November 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.