Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 28

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
  • M. Night Shyamalanadingdong → M. Night Shyamalan  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
  • M. Night Shyamalamadingdong → M. Night Shyamalan  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

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]

  • Speedy delete WP:G10. I have tagged it. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - M. Night doesn't have her, for I got a girl named Rama Lama, Rama Lama Ding Dong (she's everything to me). I agree. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:11, 29 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]

  • Speedy delete per WP:G10, although this is probably already about to take place. Rubbish computer 17:53, 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]
  • Hitman for Hire → Jim Sheridan  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
  • Hitmanforhire → Jim Sheridan  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
  • Hitmanforhire.net → Jim Sheridan  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

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]
  • Delete all per above and as Hitman for Hire's capitalisation suggests it can only refer to a specific film, rather than contract killing in general. Rubbish computer 17:51, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Title case capitalization frequently appear as redirects though, since the world at large uses title case, while Wikipedia uses sentence case. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:52, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:30, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget "Hitman For Hire" and delete the other two per 67.70.32.190. We do not require correct capitalisation of search terms. Thryduulf (talk) 12:42, 1 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.

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]

  • Delete per nom. Rubbish computer 17:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as housekeeping, as such films do not exist. Rubbish computer 17:48, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete normally. These do not meet any speedy deletion criteria as far as I can tell. Thryduulf (talk) 12:43, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 13:10, 1 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.

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]

  • Delete per nom. I was on the fence about nominating this one myself. It is really just another of Dolovis' bad faith "get the first edit so I can claim I created the article" edits, and more of his typical unnecessary time wasting. Resolute 22:54, 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]
  • Retarget to Toronto Maple Leafs. Ha! Not likely. Delete per nom. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was debating about nominating it myself. Just one of a long line of pathetic first edit gathering for Dolovis. -DJSasso (talk) 12:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The 2016 version has been added to the nomination. -- Tavix (talk) 17:41, 29 August 2015 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete per nom. Rubbish computer 17:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, let's be patient, the 2015-16 season (let alone the 2016-17 season), hasn't even started yet. GoodDay (talk) 19:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the 2017 article, maybe consider leaving the 2016 article as it is. We did leave last season's ECHL playoffs as a re-direct during the year leading up to it. Deadman137 (talk) 21:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Thryduulf (talk) 12:44, 1 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.

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]
  • Pier-Olivier Pelletier → 2005 NHL Entry Draft  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
  • Chris Durand (ice hockey) → 2005 NHL Entry Draft  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

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]

  • Delete per previous consensus. -- Tavix (talk) 22:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete yet again. Starting to consider asking for a redirect creation ban for him. -DJSasso (talk) 17:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it is becoming plainly obvious that a page creation ban is necessary. His non-redirect pages are no better. Resolute 21:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Rubbish computer 17:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per above. I'd absolutely be happy to see a page creation ban slapped on him, because this nonsense got ridiculous years ago. This isn't any attempt to improve the encyclopedia; this is a manic rush to Game High Score for article "creation." Ravenswing 02:59, 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.

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

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]

  • Keep. This is a descriptive term for what the content of the article describes - see Expanded universe for what an expanded universe is. It lists Star Trek as one of the two most prominent examples. Thryduulf (talk) 01:08, 22 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]
  • Keep - the exact title might not be mentioned, but it's an interchangable term for the same thing. WilyD 09:09, 26 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 this revision of the article (as an alternative to deletion per WP:REDLINK) since the subject seems to clearly be notable. The article needs references, though. It appears to have survived a VfD and an AfD at some point, but ended up being merged some time later possibly against consensus. The revision I selected seems to be the newest before a small group of editors started tearing the article apart, leading eventually to redirection. I don't think this was a WP:NOTWIKIA violation; as Thryduulf says this is one of the most prominent examples of canonical extra content, the other being Star Wars expanded universe which has a decent article. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:12, 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]
  • Restore per Ivanvector. Rubbish computer 17:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore per Ivanvector - a good find. This supercedes my "keep" recommendation above. Thryduulf (talk) 12:47, 1 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.

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]
  • Delete as vague. "non-canon" ≠ "other" and we can't assume that is the connection someone wants to make. -- Tavix (talk) 16:20, 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]
  • Retarget to Data (Star Trek)#Spot, which is clearly the best of the minor storylines in all of the Star Trek series. No, I'm not serious; delete per Tavix. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this appears to vague to have a suitable target, and appears implausible outside the context of searching within a Wikipedia article. Rubbish computer 17:42, 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 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]

  • keep - "other use" is a plausible search term/synonym for any of the meanings of "disambiguation", particularly given the frequency of it's use in Wikipedia hatnotes. Thryduulf (talk) 11:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. Rubbish computer 14:08, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vague. I'm sensing a Wikipedia bias here. "Other use" can mean to use something in a different/abnormal/additional way (eg: recycling would be an "other use" for some material). If we want it pointing to a vague disambiguation page that doesn't contain the term, I'd suggest a retarget to use, but it'd be better off deleting it because we'd have no idea what someone would be looking for. -- Tavix (talk) 16:06, 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]
  • Keep. No harm, no competing target, good for google. Sure "dabisabugit" is the perfect correct term, but not the most known term. -DePiep (talk) 18:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Everything in article space, including redirects, should be focused on the general reader. "Other use" to mean disambiguation is an encyclopedia-builder-focused redirect. In an encyclopedia about wrenches, "other use" might redirect somewhere that discusses conking someone on the head with a wrench. In an encyclopedia about encyclopedias, "other use" might redirect to disambiguation. In a general-purpose encyclopedia, it would not redirect anywhere. It would be deleted. Flying Jazz (talk) 13:18, 23 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]
  • Delete per Flying Jazz who has hit the nail on the head with another nail to nail it in with (an other use of nails). "Other use" means everything, if we leave aside WP:NAVELGAZING. I don't see how this helps anyone find anything. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Other use ≠ Disambiguation in all cases. "In a general-purpose encyclopedia, it would not redirect anywhere. It would be deleted." per Flying Jazz.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 01:46, 6 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.

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]
  • New army sword → Guntō  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
  • Neo army sword → Guntō  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

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]
  • Keep "new army sword" - hmm, I was going to point to Japanese sword#New swords. Guntō seems to be any sword of inferior quality mass-produced for army/military use, so I think "army" and "military" are interchangeable here whether the Japanese words are or not. There are different words for naval swords, for example. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:28, 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]
  • Redirect to wherever appropriate. Having a separate article is superfluous, add the information from the old article to a new section in the redirected article. Malamockq (talk) 22:56, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget new army sword to the more specific target stated by BDD, Delete neo army sword as it appears to have no suitable target. Rubbish computer 17:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget "new" to Guntō#Shin guntō (new military sword) while delete "neo" per, well, WP:NEO -- Lenticel (talk) 00:36, 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 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]
  • How the universe was created → Cosmogony  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

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

  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ. --Rubbish computer 12:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Compassionate727 (talk) 13:51, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:NOTFAQ applies to articles, not redirects. While it is not the most common practice, redirecting a common question with an unambiguous answer to the article that contains that answer meets none of the deletion criteria for redirects and does aid searches and prove useful to someone. Remember that redirects are WP:CHEAP. This particular answer may not be unambiguous, but it redirects to a general article that covers all possible answers, which is appropriate. ~ RobTalk 14:50, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a reasonable redirect. The redirect itself is not an FAQ . -- Whpq (talk) 17:30, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as being a plausible search term. A redirect is not a FAQ, WP:NOTFAQ does not apply to redirects, and none of the reasons for deleting redirects listed under WP:RFD#DELETE applies here.  --Lambiam 20:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Double keep. Even if NOTFAQ did apply to redirects, "How the universe was created" is a (nontechnical) synonym for "cosmogony", and is distinct from the question "How was the universe created?" FourViolas (talk) 00:27, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stong Delete per WP:NOTFAQ. That aside, this term addresses "any model concerning the coming-into-existence", not the "how" specifically.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 00:49, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ, which, along with any other statement on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, can be applied to Wikipedia as a whole, including redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It looks like the target article is about how the universe was created. Theories, at least. --BDD (talk) 22:20, 16 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]
  • Retarget to Chronology of the universe, which describes in as much detail as we would be likely to provide here how the universe was created according to prevailing scientific consensus. The redirect isn't study of how the universe was created. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Big Bang. Malamockq (talk) 22:58, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:XY since I don't believe there to be one target suitable for this query. -- Tavix (talk) 23:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:CHEAP. WP:NOTFAQ seems to me to refer to content, not titles. It says, "Wikipedia should not list Frequently Asked Questions." This is a potential (if somewhat unlikely) search term, not a list. And I see no other arguments raised, so I have to default to WP:CHEAP. I do agree that The Big Bang is a reasonable alternative target, but Cosmogeny seems broader, and indeed, lists BBT right up at the top of the article as the prevailing Cosmogeny today. On the other hand, Chronology of the universe only touches on the topic, and seems far less appropriate to me. Xtifr tälk 09:43, 30 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]
  • Keep. This seems to be a reasonably plausible search term given that the word cosmogony is not that common. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:32, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NOTHOWTO, WP:NOTGUIDE. Origin of the universe, Origin of the Universe, Creation of the universe, Origins of the universe, Origins of the Universe, Origins of universe, Origin of the universe, Cosmonogy, Cosmogonical cos we love adjectives, Cosmogonies cos we love plurals. WP:NOTDIC. If someone wants to know what is the difference between cosmogony and cosmology — a very fine distinction it seems to me – they can look it up in a dictionary. WP:NOTDIC. Cheap indeed, but don't you think it has enough redirects already? The purpose of redirects is to help readers to search. If there is too much clutter, they do not help but hinder. And this is one that hinders. Si Trew (talk) 02:33, 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 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]

  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ. --Rubbish computer 12:32, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Compassionate727 (talk) 13:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:NOTFAQ applies to articles, not redirects. While it is not the most common practice, redirecting a common question with an unambiguous answer to the article that contains that answer meets none of the deletion criteria for redirects and does aid searches and prove useful to someone. Remember that redirects are WP:CHEAP. ~ RobTalk 14:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep plausible search terminology. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:23, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ, which, along with any other statement on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, can be applied to Wikipedia as a whole, including redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please read NOTFAQ before invoking it. It's quite clear that it only applies to how articles are laid out. The claim that it can be applied to "Wikipedia as a whole, including redirects" is untrue. WilyD 16:34, 10 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]
  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ and Steel1943. Not elaborating on each individually as so many have been listed of this type on this date.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • This redirect is not a question, it's merely a rephrasing of the title. How could NOTFAQ possibly be relevant to something that isn't a question, and doesn't involve questions in any way? WilyD 16:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Strange capitalization, but since the target article has a descriptive name, we should be generous with redirects to it. --BDD (talk) 22:09, 16 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]
  • Keep as this does not appear to be phrased as a question. Rubbish computer 17:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete. Without the odd capitalization, I might argue to keep as a plausible search term if I could convince myself the target was a reasonable one. But as it is, the question doesn't arise. Xtifr tälk 09:49, 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 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]

  • Keep because this does not appear to be posed as a question, but rather as a statement. If it was How does internet use affect the human brain?, I would say Delete per WP:NOTFAQ. --Rubbish computer 12:43, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: seems plausible enough. Compassionate727 (talk) 13:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: An interrogative pronoun, phrase, or word should not be used in a title in a scholarly encyclopedia, IMHO. Perhaps they are permissible in a children's encyclopedia or simple-english work when the actual subject matter may be less than obvious to the audience. Beyond that it seems those titles only convey that the authors aren't sure of their capability to pick a proper subject matter. These redirected titles should be deleted, they are remnants of article history, not intentional alternate titles. Kbrose (talk) 14:33, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:NOTFAQ applies to articles, not redirects. While it is not the most common practice, redirecting a common question with an unambiguous answer to the article that contains that answer meets none of the deletion criteria for redirects and does aid searches and prove useful to someone. Remember that redirects are WP:CHEAP. ~ RobTalk 14:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ, which, along with any other statement on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, can be applied to Wikipedia as a whole, including redirects. (If a question mark was added to the end of this redirect, it would be a question missing the word "do". It could have been possible that the question mark was unintentionally omitted from this title.) Steel1943 (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please read NOTFAQ before invoking it. It's quite clear that it only applies to how articles are laid out. The claim that it can be applied to "Wikipedia as a whole, including redirects" is untrue. If it was a different redirect, it might be a question, but it's this redirect, and it's not a question, making the invocation of the unrelated NOTFAQ doubly bizarre. Please familiarise yourself with policies before invoking them, your failure to do makes discussion of this redirect difficult. WilyD 16:29, 10 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]
  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ and Steel1943. Not elaborating on each individually as so many have been listed of this type on this date.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, aids searching which is what redirects are for. Also harmless and cheap. Siuenti (talk) 12:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep That's what the target article is about. I don't see a problem. --BDD (talk) 21:44, 16 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]
  • Keep - as opposed to my rationale in the discussion below, narrowing the scope of the query from "humans" to "the human brain" makes this target fairly accurate. Not a slam dunk, but plausible. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, I think a similar argument applies here. The way it's phrased seem to me to imply physiological, rather than psychological, effects. Or at least to be somewhat ambiguous and potentially misleading. But I'm not entirely sure, which is why I'm abstaining. Xtifr tälk 10:05, 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 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]

  • Keep - unambiguously directs the reader to the content they're looking for. Since WP:NOTFAQ is about article content, and redirects have no content, I can only assume it's linking was an egregious error, rather than a deliberate attempt to mislead. WilyD 12:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as this appears to be a statement rather than a question; if it said How does internet use affect humans? I would propose deletion per WP:NOTFAQ. --Rubbish computer 13:47, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as plausible. Compassionate727 (talk) 13:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per previous entry. Kbrose (talk) 14:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:NOTFAQ applies to articles, not redirects. While it is not the most common practice, redirecting a common question with an unambiguous answer to the article that contains that answer meets none of the deletion criteria for redirects and does aid searches and prove useful to someone. Remember that redirects are WP:CHEAP. ~ RobTalk 14:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ, which, along with any other statement on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, can be applied to Wikipedia as a whole, including redirects. (If the word "does" was added to the redirect, it would be a question. It could have been possible that this word was accidentally omitted.) Steel1943 (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please read NOTFAQ before invoking it. It's quite clear that it only applies to how articles are laid out. The claim that it can be applied to "Wikipedia as a whole, including redirects" is untrue. WilyD 16:26, 10 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]
  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ and Steel1943. Not elaborating on each individually as so many have been listed of this type on this date.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Although this redirect includes the word "How", it's not even a question. It's simply a rephrasing of the title into more ordinary language. Since FAQ is totally inapplicable, can you explain why you invoked it to delete this redirect, which does not involve any question in any way, shape, or form? WilyD 16:27, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • @WilyD: The combination explosion that would result from phrasing every title, section title, or piece of info from an article that people might be looking for in this manner in a "How", "What", "Where", etc. form would be insane. It's similar to the spirit of WP:NOTFAQ in nature. Wikipedia has a search engine, these type of redirects are not necessary.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 08:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • The number of pages and redirects on Wikipedia is going to be large regardless. Nothing is necessary - we can choose to be slightly dickish to our readership in exchange for no encyclopaedic benefit. But why would we want to? Why write an encyclopaedia and deliberately make it hard to find what you're looking for? WilyD 09:02, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • @WilyD: We clearly fundamentally disagree. I'm not going to spend the time having basically the same discussion with you on multiple August 7 RfD's. If you have any further inquiries about my rationales that you would like answered concerning the issue at hand regarding multiple entries on this page, feel free to post on my talk page, and I'll reply there. Regards,—Godsy(TALKCONT) 09:21, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • This isn't for my benefit. The point of this board to ensure redirects exist that get readers to the content they're looking for. Hiding relevant discussions isn't going to be helpful. This is the place to discuss whether we should move readers who are looking for this content along for the content, or take away their guide, so they flounder in frustration and helplessness. If there's a compelling need for the encyclopaedia to treat this readers with such contempt, everyone should know what it is. WilyD 09:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The target article definitely describes how internet use affects humans. Granted, the target article is about psychological effects only, but that may be all there is to say anyway. I can't really imagine the internet specifically having any physiological effects that would differ from computer use generally. --BDD (talk) 21:43, 16 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]
  • Delete - the target only details one of many ways that internet/technology use affect humans. What about cultural, financial, economic, political, sociological effects? It's simply not anywhere near as narrow as this target. Because of how vague this is, I can't imagine that we have a better target. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ivanvector. That's a really good point—I was still just thinking in terms of biology, but you're right, of course. Sociology of the Internet is also relevant, and perhaps other topics. We shouldn't just choose one, and this isn't a good candidate for disambiguation. --BDD (talk) 19:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:XY since I don't believe there to be one target suitable for this query. -- Tavix (talk) 17:12, 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.

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]

  • Keep per my point at #How internet use affects humans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rubbish computer (talk • contribs) 12:45, 7 August 2015
  • Keep as plausible. Compassionate727 (talk) 13:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:NOTFAQ applies to articles, not redirects. While it is not the most common practice, redirecting a common question with an unambiguous answer to the article that contains that answer meets none of the deletion criteria for redirects and does aid searches and prove useful to someone. Remember that redirects are WP:CHEAP. ~ RobTalk 14:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ, which, along with any other statement on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, can be applied to Wikipedia as a whole, including redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ and Steel1943. Not elaborating on each individually as so many have been listed of this type on this date.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Especially since the target article has a descriptive name, we should be generous with redirects to it. This isn't really a matter of a FAQ: the article describes "how directness of sunlight causes warmer weather". There's no query, "How [does] directness of sunlight [cause] warmer weather?" Pedantic, perhaps, but an important distinction in my book. --BDD (talk) 21:39, 16 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]
  • Keep - this seems reasonable. I mean, there are other factors influencing sunlight's impact on climate, like clouds or the greenhouse effect, but those aren't "directness" factors really. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:53, 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]
  • Tucking in (parenting) → Bedtime  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
  • Tucking in (food) → Eating  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

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]
  • Keep both per above points: the second one per NikkiMaria's source. --Rubbish computer 19:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both - Bedtime is the time in which a parent tucks a child into bed. Bed-making occurs when there is no one in the bed. These two redirects should be readded to the Tucking in disambiguation page. Neelix (talk) 20:14, 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]
  • Delete both. The disambiguation was rejected in the other RFD and these seem like implausible search terms the way they are disambiguated. -- Tavix (talk) 03:52, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep the first; it's a strange disambiguator, but I suppose that's what someone would be looking for. Delete the second, as no form of "tucking in" is mentioned at the target article. --BDD (talk) 13:40, 13 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]
  • Weak retarget. Tuck shop#Etymology has "Tuck into" in the food sense (not "tuck in" or "tucking in", though). Si Trew (talk) 11:29, 24 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]
  • Fromagier → Cheesemaking  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

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]

  • Weak keep per my comments at #Dinosaurier - there's a not-very-prominent trend of adding -ier to English words (or words borrowed from French) to create a word for a person with a particular taste for a subject. A fromagier (from fromage) could easily be a cheese connoisseur; a sommelier (from bête de somme, this is a fun one) is a wine expert; a pannier (from pain) is not a person but related to bread otherwise; and so on. I would also argue (again, weakly) that cheesemaking is indeed a notable characteristic of French culture, and certainly of Québec culture. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:41, 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]
  • Keep - directs the readers to the topic they're looking for. Since FORRED doesn't provide an arguments for deletion or retargetting, I'm unclear why it's linked - I can only assume it's an error. I would (semi-seriously) caution against telling any French people that cheesemaking is not exclusive to France, as they're liable to take offence. WilyD 08:47, 13 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]
  • Retarget to Fromager as a plausible misspelling --Lenticel (talk) 07:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Fromager per Lenticel. --BDD (talk) 14:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment slightly unrelated, but the region of Fromager is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, as it is not that well known outside the Ivory Coast, perhaps, wikt:fromager says it is a English word, which slightly makes me to vote week keep for this redirect, perhaps a hatnote at Fromager or a dab page is better? - TheChampionMan1234 05:01, 27 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]
  • Keep (note: I previously !voted "weak keep", this comment is expanding) - I don't know why I didn't do it before, but searching "fromagier" brings up many results for French cheesemakers and cheesemaking in English. French Wiktionary gives it as a synonym (not a misspelling) for fromager (cheesemaker), so among other things my previous "not a real French word" comment was inaccurate. And, as noted previously, cheesemaking is a notable facet of French culture. I think keeping the target is better than targeting List of French cheeses (where French cheese targets) but there you have that option as well. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ivanvector. I think retargeting to Fromager would be a WP:SURPRISE, especially given its (relative) obscurity. -- Tavix (talk) 17:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ivanvector. Canuck89 (what's up?) 03:33, September 1, 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per the above, and that English (at least British English) does use a lot of French terms related to food and food making (particularly high status cuisine, which is perhaps unsurprising given the history of the English language and its interaction with Norman French) and so I can easily see this being used in English for a pretentious cheesemaker. Thryduulf (talk) 13:01, 1 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.

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]

  • Retarget to Y.U. Mad a rap song. to Vic Mensa#Singles. Perhaps a plausible search term and "typo" of sorts. There is a song titled "U Mad" by Vic Mensa (apparently), so directing U mad to it seems reasonable.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 06:19, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • retarget per Godsy. Thryduulf (talk) 14:40, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Godsy: seems way too vague to refer to trolling, as it could refer to teasing or bullying. Rubbish computer 14:53, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The phrase 'U mad?', or often 'U mad, bro?' is indeed associated with internet trolling/bullying 'culture' and pictographic memes or whatever that stuff is called. Due to the overlap between using an iconic troll picture (in many cases) for the purpose of teasing rather than spreading disinformation and other stuff usually attributed to internet trolling it's quite understandable why somebody would create such a redirect, and why other people would disagree. Actually it's better described as an Internet meme. It becomes pretty evident when you search Google pictures for 'u mad troll' or 'u mad bro' etc. Generally, there are plenty other websites which discuss countless internet memes of doubtful notability in detail, and unless reliable sources start referencing them Wikipedia shouldn't bother too much, too soon. However, some memes like the famous All your base are belong to us got more than enough attention to get their own article. As for 'U mad?', and please forgive me for using http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/u-mad as a source, it seems to have been around since 2003 and is still widespread - that's quite something in the world of internet memes, where a lot of them tend to get short-lived popularity for a few months or a bit longer, then eventually become outright unpopular because regular users of forums/channels/imageboards etc. become tired of reposting the same thing. I think the persistence of this 'U mad?' thing for more than a decade could easily warrant an article inside Internet memes (I mean the category, don't know how to link to that page), then it would make sense to ambiguate between the meme and the rap song(s). As for notability of the meme, that's mostly original research on my part because I've been interested in internet (sub)cultures for decades, so don't put too much weight into my opinion. Rh73 (talk) 21:34, 19 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]
  • Delete - The term could plausibly direct either to the internet meme page, to Cam'ron (since he's the guy that more or less invented the meme), or to any of the artists with songs having the title (looks like there's a lot of them, from Brokencyde to Vic Mensa). I guess a disambiguation page could be created, but I feel more like the text should just be red. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 20:39, 21 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 → Democracy  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

"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]
  • Delete per WP:XY, per all of the above points. "Democratic" can describe a political ideology or party (democrat) or a philosophy or form of government (democracy). Disambiguating to two more disambiguation pages is clunky, let's just delete it. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:47, 10 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]
  • Retarget per Tavix. Thryduulf (talk) 14:40, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll go to retarget per Tavix. If Democrat lists uses for "democracy" then that satisfies my concerns. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:26, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, mostly because I'm concerned about the incoming links, which demonstrate that the redirect is working as intended. "Democracy" is the core idea here; something democratic is "of or pertaining to" it. It would be one thing if Democratic itself were a disambiguation page (which may or may not be feasible). Retargeting to a dab doesn't seem especially helpful to me when there's already a hatnote at the article anyway. --BDD (talk) 22:21, 19 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]
  • Geesh. We have over 600 links to "Democratic". My quick check found that there's likely a lot of these intended for "Democratic Party". I think we should just bite the bullet and force disambiguation. I've found that using Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups, as described at User talk:Wbm1058 § Disambiguation links really speeds this up. One of the better-kept secrets for semi-automating Wikipedia maintenance. I'll help with this if disambiguation is forced. Wbm1058 (talk) 21:11, 1 September 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]
  • Redirect template → Redirect  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
  • Redirect templates → Redirect  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

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]

  • Delete per nom and per WP:RFD#D2 as a confusing redirect. Rubbish computer 10:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Less than once-daily page views indicates these are implausible search terms. Hatnote(s) to project- and template-space should be kept on the target Redirect dab, however. Wbm1058 (talk) 12:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Wikipedia:Template messages/Redirect pages - I originally created the redirect Redirect templates more than 10 years ago, and it was originally targeted to Wikipedia:Template messages/Redirect pages, but somehow over the years, the target changed to a disambiguation page that does not even link to Wikipedia:Template messages/Redirect pages. The reason I created it was so that the list of the redirect templates would be easy to find for anyone who was trying to find a list of templates for redirect pages. This should apply to Redirect templates. I'm not sure about Redirect template. Ae-a (talk) 20:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is not reader content WP:XNR to the internal pipework of Wikipedia is not for the readership -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:22, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_August_28&oldid=1142587269"