Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 18[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 18, 2015.

Wakopedia[edit]

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 without prejudice against recreation as article, or as redirect to a page that discusses the terms. There is no overwhelming consensus - the opinion split is 6 keeps vs 9 deletes. The keep side argues that this is a harmless joke and there are reliable external sources using these phrases to parodise Wikipedia. The delete side argues that nowhere in Wikipedia mentions these terms and they are derogatory. Weighing these up with relevant policy, my decision is to delete the redirects for now, but allow recreation if these terms are given coverage on certain articles in the future (say criticism of Wikipedia). Deryck C. 16:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Entirely implausible typo. - TheChampionMan1234 02:20, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep well known synonyms. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:36, 21 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete there seems to be other sites that uses this name. I won't link them here since I don't know how safe they are. Also delete as implausible misspellings. --Lenticel (talk) 03:14, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as joke and derogatory synonyms for Wikipedia (they are both at the same time both) If we have any other topics by these names, they can be disambiguated. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:23, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If their use is supported by reliable sources they should be kept, otherwise they should be deleted. --Rubbish computer 09:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep both. While in some months neither redirect gets more than bot hits, there are months (e.g. December 2014, February and May 2015) where one or both get clearly human levels of views. Reliable sources don't matter for redirects, what matters is whether the terms are used. They're unambiguous and harmless at present, so no reason to delete. Thryduulf (talk) 10:50, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. Rubbish computer 11:19, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RNEUTRAL. Disparaging terms need significant use in order to have a redirect. I think it would need to be sourced and mentioned in the article in order to keep it. -- Tavix (talk) 15:02, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Lenticel and Tavix - both have good points. If Wackypedia is sufficiently notable for an article, someone can write one; as-is, this is spam, and possibly harmfully confusing. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. -©2015 Compassionate727(Talk)(Contributions) 16:56, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It looks like at least one of these are actually in use in the first place by a website that's obviously not Wikipedia. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 20:27, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • A trifle annoyed at people demanding references for redirects (again). Try
for starters. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Why should you be annoyed at having to be WP:RS like every other editor on Wikipedia? I thought WP:Raw references were discouraged nowadays (and by nowadays I mean since a long time ago.) I spend ages editing references to make them better to readers who do not necessarily click through them. What do you do? Make other editors do your homework. I can find stuff on the Internet too. It is for you to make the case, not for me to dispute it. Si Trew (talk) 22:28, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both as WP:RFD#D2 with extremely little corresponding WP:RFD#K3 benefit:
    1. It is not particularly useful to redirect every obscure nickname or synonym or typo to a target which is already extremely well-known by its normal name. That's not a reason to delete by itself, but ...
    2. These redirects cross the line into harmfulness when there are actual other topics (whether notable or not) known by those nicknames (as there are in this case). A reader who follows the redirect looking for information about the other topic will be disappointed. Worse, the redirects may mislead readers into thinking the topics are officially related.
See also previous RFDs on Sanic the Hedgehog and Sanic & Taels. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 05:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moderately strong delete (between delete and strong delete) Meaningless pejoratives whose removal will make it no more difficult for readers to find the target article. Compare to the red Obummer. And in fact, these could certainly cause confusion. As noted, Wackypedia is the actual name of another site, and Wakopedia is its own thing too, though I'm really not sure what. Note also that the sources provided don't use "Wakopedia". I would think "Wackopedia" would be the more logical spelling, and it's red. --BDD (talk) 16:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. One of the terms has been around for a lucky seven years, and the other was published both in The Signpost and on a British news website. If other site(s) with these harmless, funny names become notable and have their own WP articles, then the redirects can be converted. Never let it be said that this enpsychopedia cannot laugh at itself. – Painius  00:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Painius  20:51, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would have thought "no consensus to delete" at this stage. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]
And I would tend to agree – where are all those "amens" when you need them? !>) Painius  00:15, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, no cigar for that one, Mr. Guye, because G10 is reserved for "attack pages" perpetrated against a person. Thank you for participating and please try again later. Painius  11:22, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Paine Ellsworth:, I think your response was a little WP:BITEY, and I'm not sure how accurate it is to begin with. G10 is for pages that "attack...their subject or some other entity", and the subject or some other entity doesn't necessarily have to be a human. There are other examples given about slander, libel, BLP violations, etc., which specifically refer to people, but those are examples and not the actual criteria. To elaborate, one of the template examples given is {{db-attackorg}}. That being said, G10 also mentions "serve no other purpose" and I think we can acquiesce that the redirect also serves a non-attack purpose: humor. Therefore, while I agree with you in that this particular redirect isn't G10, G10 can be used if there's an attack page against a non-human entity (eg: a government, corporation, organization, sports team). -- Tavix (talk) 21:05, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected, friend Tavix, however the reason that the examples apply to humans is that the vast majority of attack pages are (sadly) against people. And not to put too fine a point on it, even orgs are groups of people. And a sincere apology to Mr. Guye for any perceived biteyness. Painius  21:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, according to some, they aren't just groups of people—they are people. But let's not go there... :) -- Tavix (talk) 22:11, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above - Wakopedia literally sums this place up nicely! , Harmless joke so see no reason to delete. –Davey2010Talk 19:52, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BDD and Lenticel. As a member of the Wikipedia community, I suppose I'm a bit biased against possibly derogatory synonyms for the site. That aside, these are actually their own entities as pointed out above. If they are notable for a article of their own, it could be created; they should not however, erroneously redirect to Wikipedia. Well sourced usages of these terms to refer to Wikipedia would be needed to convince me that these terms are useful and warranted.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 21:22, 24 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 Juice[edit]

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 juices. JohnCD (talk) 14:59, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No such detailed list exists at the target. Steel1943 (talk) 19:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm about to create WP:List articles to redirect to WP:List article as {{R from plural}}. I mention this here so that it does not queer my comment above that we do not have it, does not confuse others why I said we hadn't it. Si Trew (talk) 00:04, 21 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.

Heathen[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 October 1#Heathen

Wikipedia:BADGER[edit]

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 Wikipedia:Harassment. JohnCD (talk) 15:01, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused why this longstanding shortcut to the harassment policy has been retargeted to a user's page (WP:XNR) but I'm bringing it here because that user's page was actually the original target, so I don't know what's going on. Unless there's some reason for this, should retarget to Wikipedia:Harassment, where it's been since late 2013. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:59, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Also, per my comments to Legoktm below, I strongly oppose "keep"-ing the target, and support weak delete. (I still prefer my initial retargeting option over deleting.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:40, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I see on the RFB is discussion on whether or not Addshore's actions were considered "badgering". I don't know if you meant this comment to be humorous or not, but either way, the current target is inappropriate since the current target does not relate to Wikipedia policies or guidelines. If anything, retaining the target is the equivalent to an inside joke that will WP:SURPRISE most readers. Steel1943 (talk) 17:40, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it is a in-joke. I don't see how WP:SURPRISE is relevant, given that redirects to Wikipedia:Writing better articles, and we're definitely not talking about an article.
    I also haven't actually argued for the current target, I'm just pointing out that the target most people are proposing isn't appropriate either. I'd like the current target to stay because I find it funny, but I also understand that Wikipedia is 100% serious business. Legoktm (talk) 18:52, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Legoktm: WP:SURPRISE is the best guideline I could find that explains the confusion I see with this redirect: A reader new to Wikipedia (or even myself who was unaware of Addshore's past until this discussion) will look up "WP:BADGER" in an effort to find information regarding "badgering", and for some reason arrive at a user page. That, and does Addshore approve having appropriate {{Redirect}} hatnote on their page to help readers locate a more appropriate subject in the event they are looking for something else? (By the way, I'm all about humor as well, but only when appropriate; the current situation is so unlikely that it is actually harmful.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Wikipedia:Harassment, because badger and harass are rough WP:SYNONYMs and would most likely be what someone is wanting. By the way, the "mentioned" argument goes both ways because "badger" isn't mentioned at User:Addshore either. -- Tavix (talk) 21:55, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget It was the target for more than a year. Preferably explain what it refers to in the policy, too. wctaiwan (talk) 00:46, 22 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.

Reich Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda[edit]

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. This is a move request. --BDD (talk) 21:53, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I want to move the redirect target page here - the actual name is "Reich", not "Reichs".-Ich (talk) 17:58, 18 September 2015 (UTC) Ich (talk) 17:58, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete WP:G6. @Ich: the way to request such an uncontroversial move is to use {{db-move}}, and an administrator will take care of it for you. I've tagged the page with your request. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:24, 18 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.

Truth (film)[edit]

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 Truth (disambiguation)#Film and television. JohnCD (talk) 15:05, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is not helpful. There are presently two films called Truth on WP: the target article of this redirect, Truth (2013 film), and Truth (2015 film), an upcoming, potentially controversial film with two very high profile actors and an awards campaign to boot. The 2013 film is a small indie with very muted critical response, and virtually non-existent box office. 2013 film article traffic stats vs 2015 film article stats for the last 90 days. Most recent spikes in 2013 article traffic are very likely to do with news, media reports, festival critical reaction and awards buzz for the 2015 film. People searching for Truth (film) are being redirected to the 2013 film. Most readers searching for a film Truth will most likely be searching for the 2015 film. No internal links would be broken; unlikely external links to the redirect exist. Propose delete. Lapadite (talk) 17:03, 18 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.

Shitface[edit]

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) 01:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

This redirect was recently nominated for RFD, but got next to no individual discussion in a WP:TRAINWRECK (it had been speedy deleted and was red for most of the discussion). I don't think there is a good target for this redirect and should be deleted per either WP:R#D2 or WP:XY. For one, it isn't mentioned anywhere at alcohol intoxication. When I think of shitface, I think of it literally, as in a fetish where someone takes a shit on someone else's face (and that's as graphic as I'd like to go). -- Tavix (talk) 01:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep WP:POFRED this is a very common word for being drunk. WP:NOTDIC We do not add a list of synonyms to articles. We should not expect targets to have every synonym listed, even if they exist as redirects. ; Perhaps we should add DRAFT:Template:Redirect documentation as a recommended process for supporting the existence of redirects. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:41, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I very much like the idea of being able to add documentation to R's. I don't think 70.51 nor myself is suggesting that they should be at every R, but sometimes, when they are "non-obvious", as the documentation says(but does not link), they would be very helpful I think to avoid a WP:SURPRISE. "Non-obvious"is used by the UK and I think the US patent office to suggest when a patent might be granted, it used to have to be ä new invention or some such, but now just has to be non-obvious. To the unspeakable advancement of human knowledge. Si Trew (talk) 06:30, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Not sure. Shitfaced certainly is slang for drunk as verb which also goes to alcohol intoxication. Shitface is not, it is just a general swear word for someone one dislikes. I have a good personal etymology, having been called both. Si Trew (talk) 06:22, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all There is nothing at WP:POFRED to support keeping this—"shitface" is not an alternative name for intoxicated in the sense envisaged by WP:POFRED. Documenting all words is not the purpose of Wikipedia (WP:NOTDIC), and that goes double for documenting all ill-defined slang terms. If it's notable, make a list of slang words meaning intoxicated. Johnuniq (talk) 07:55, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all For the same reasons noted by Johnuniq.Cebr1979 (talk) 07:58, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget "shitface" to Moingona#Moingona as "Excrement-Faced", the verb form literally translates to "shit-face" (might be a bit WP:SURPRISE but it is the encyclopedic way to go). Neutral on "shitfaced", I can see both sides on that one. I also found Defecate on My Face, but I don't think that is a good target for either one.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 11:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Godsy: I just read that article: LOL some of the stuff on this website. Rubbish computer 13:14, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed .—Godsy(TALKCONT) 13:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the first point, about alternative names, of WP:POFRED. Rubbish computer 13:14, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Yes, I know, these are 'bad words'. However, "He's shitfaced", "She's shitfaced", "Don't get shitfaced", and so on is an extremely common usage in English, especially in the United States. This is proper given that it's exactly what's being meant: being totally drunk. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm, I don't think anyone is doubting that "shitfaced" is slang for "intoxicated" (although I am not sure whether we would be better just saying to intoxication rather than specifically alcohol). What I am arguing is that "shitface" does not mean that, and since we haven't excrement face, excrementface or excrement-face that choice of retarget would seem equally confusing, and also a bit mealy-mouthed. I'll try to find an etymology in the woodware later, it should be in Eric Partridge's Dictionary of English Slang, being a strine lexicographer, but I would guess it would be in there , he was the master at cataloguing these things, but I agree, WP:NOTDIC. Si Trew (talk) 06:02, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Shitfaced, Redirect Shitface - Shitfaced is most certainty used in the UK, and Shitface is the perfect term to describe this man!. –Davey2010Talk 20:00, 21 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.

The Eighth Wonder (film)[edit]

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 Simon Kinberg#Future projects. JohnCD (talk) 15:23, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:REDLINK because this should be red until there is enough information on the film to create an article. not mentioned at the target. -- Tavix (talk) 01:10, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:42, 18 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.

Beneath the Deep (film)[edit]

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 Andrzej Bartkowiak#Upcoming projects. JohnCD (talk) 15:20, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:REDLINK as this should be red until there's enough information to create an article. no significant usage of this phrase and I couldn't find any information on Wikipedia of a film with this name. -- Tavix (talk) 01:09, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:41, 18 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.

Antivillain[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 28#Antivillain

Intel Core i5 430m[edit]

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 Intel Core i5 microprocessors. JohnCD (talk) 15:16, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirect. sstflyer 05:38, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - This is a product that genuinely exists, and the link to the general article about Intel production is helpful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:40, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to List of Intel Core i5 microprocessors since that would be even more precise, as stated below CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:42, 18 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.

Intel Core i7-4558U[edit]

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. JohnCD (talk) 15:10, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirect. Do we have to create a redirect for each and every single CPU model? sstflyer 05:37, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as an {{R from product}}. It's mentioned in the target article. Steel1943 (talk) 05:38, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the only CPU-specific redirect for the entire Intel Core i7 CPU series. sstflyer 05:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the instigator of this controversy, I really don't mind either way :-) I think the reason I added a redirect was that a search gave the right page as the third hit or something, don't know if that matters. --Unhammer (talk) 08:09, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Steel1943. Rubbish computer 13:51, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since the redirect is mentioned in the article --Lenticel (talk) 00:20, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep valid redirect, information exists at target -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:32, 19 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.

Lincoln middle school (alameda,california)[edit]

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) 01:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is unneeded and incorrectly capitalized (and lacks a space between the "," and "california"). There is also a better redirect at Lincoln Middle School (Alameda, California) -Sonicwave (talk|c) 04:58, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:RTYPO. There are too many typos for this to be plausible as a search term. -- Tavix (talk) 04:59, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. How many do you think is two,many, Tavix? Si Trew (talk) 22:05, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:RTYPO (emphasis mine): "if a single redirect contains multiple typos, it may be considered an unlikely search term and deleted" -- Tavix (talk) 01:46, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tavix. Rubbish computer 13:53, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Typos are all right, we all make 'em, and it's OK if they encourage people to find the article they want. I can't see that this would go to any other target. WP:RFD#K2. As per User:WilyD often says, nobody has suggested a reason (or rationale or argument) has been presented for deletion.
Deleting this would make it harder to search. So I cannot understand the "too many typos" argument, which does not seem to fall under any existing criteria, and no reason, argument or rationale was given for deletion. Si Trew (talk) 22:13, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SimonTrew:, I would respectfully disagree with you. An argument for deletion has been mentioned if you could please read my delete !vote. It's WP:RTYPO. -- Tavix (talk) 01:33, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not me who usually says "no reason has been..." when a reason has been. That's WilyD and it annoys me too, but on this occasion, WilyD's reasoning is sound. I dislike it too as it seems very much off the cuff to just dismiss an argument in that way without reasoning. WilyD has given good reasons now, and I agree with them, that to expect readers to be familiar with the MoS is foolish (and the MoS is far too large, and I have lots of manuals of style if you wish me to quote, but the MoS is basically "whatever anyone can get away with"). That is what editors do, and the vast majority of people using Wikipedia are readers not editors. It is our business to get them to where they want to go. That takes a bit of second-guessing I know, because until we retarget it or whatever how would we know if they get a WP:SURPRISE, hits etc don't help us there. Wily has hit the nail on the thumb this time, which is why I pinged Wily into the discussion. Si Trew (talk) 13:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uhm, if you'd read it, you'd see RTYPO contains only usual outcomes, not their reasoning. WilyD 12:46, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - @Si Trew: Pinging users into a discussion based on their their known opinions is frowned upon. However, I'd like to make it abundantly clear that I don't believe that you were trying to sway the outcome of this discussion. This isn't meant as an accusation, merely a friendly reminder. From your statements above, it seems you were just trying to point out a valid use of WilyD's "no rationale given" reasoning.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:15, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for telling me that, can you point me to a policy (but I believe you). The whole ping and notification business is somewhat new to me, so I am never sure when to use or not to use. F'rexample, and this is deliberately WP:POINTY, why is it OK for you to ping me when I made my opinion known right at the start of this discussion, but not for me to ping (I assume) you? I just go by instinct on whether someone who should be included was not included, but obviously we have better advice of which I am unaware. This sounds sarcastic, I can see, but isn't. Si Trew (talk) 19:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Si Trew: Wikipedia:Canvassing is the behavioral guideline I mentioned above. To address your second question: In this specific discussion, as we've both already participated, it is quite appropriate for either of us to ping each other. WilyD had not participated in the discussion yet at the time of your ping, and the reason you stated when mentioning them was that their known opinion applied, hence my comment above. Wikipedia:Canvassing does a fairly good job of explaining an appropriate notification vs. an inappropriate notification. I don't believe that you pinged with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way. It's always good to be cautious though, so the accusation can't be made.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 20:42, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's just nonsense, then. The whole point is to ping people who are not involved in the discussion but one thinks he or she ought to be. Those involved in the discussion are already informed so that is just arse about face to do it that way. Thanks for letting me know. I am aware of [{WP:CANVASS]] but I think all regs here would agree, the person I actually pinged, WilyD, usually has a very different opinion from mine. Si Trew (talk) 22:46, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as far as I can tell, this redirect has no typo. Capitalisation choices aren't even typos, but merely choices (and ditto where to space buttfuck,nowhere or Buttfuck, Nowhere). Expecting readers to be familiar with the MOS is foolish. WilyD 12:46, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This does not belong on my talk page, it belongs on the page for the R. Si Trew (talk) 13:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"and ditto where to space buttfuck,nowhere or Buttfuck, Nowhere" — very unprofessional, especially coming from an admin. Quis separabit? 13:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: as per @Tavix
    "Typos are all right, we all make 'em, and it's OK if they encourage people to find the article they want" -- seriously??!! It looks crappy, illiterate and unprofessional. Kill it ASAP. Quis separabit? 00:41, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Either you are being deliberately obtuse or you misunderstood. Typos are all right because on searching we all make typos. On articles, typos are unnaceptable and that is what MoS is for, if it were not so large and self-contradictory that too many people looking up their own arses couldn't be bothered to write an article. But typos in articles are bad, typos in searching for articles are OK. For if not, delete {{R from typo}} and the category (there doesn't seem to be one) that it autocats them into by doing so, and all the redirects in it. (The usual procedure is to argue each individually, so good luck.) Si Trew (talk) 19:52, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RTYPO and implausibility. General writing conventions should have some weight here at WP:RFD, especially if more than one error is present in the same redirect.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:15, 27 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.

Kurushima-Kaikyo Bridge[edit]

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 snow keep. Since it's obvious this is going to be kept, I'm going to go ahead and close this. Ivanvector offers some good advice to the nominator though. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 16:06, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

i modified all article pages with redirects to this page, so it can be deleted now Compfreak7 (talk) 02:21, 18 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.

Level pack[edit]

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 withdrawn. Steel1943 (talk) 14:17, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:XY. The redirects could refer to their current target, but in the most recent years/months, the redirects have a stronger connection with the term "Downloadable content". Steel1943 (talk) 01:20, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep "level pack(s)" -- DLC is a type of expansion pack, since it expands the game with new content (such as a new character for a fighting game, new music, new skins, etc). DLC should be mentioned at expansion pack. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 04:55, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "mission pack" is ambiguous, there are other uses, such as in military contexts. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 04:55, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A level pack is a form of an expansion pack. That most expansion packs happen to be downloadable does not make it less true that level packs are expansion packs. There is also the historical context to keep in mind: Just because all level packs are downloadable today, that was not always true, and Wikipedia also covers the historical context. Thue (talk) 11:32, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thue. Rubbish computer 13:56, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thue. The key thing to keep in mind with WP:XY is equally. If there's one target that's better than another one, that definitely isn't a reason to delete. -- Tavix (talk) 14:13, 18 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.

Data disk[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 28#Data disk

Fleeing[edit]

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 Flee (disambiguation). JohnCD (talk) 15:09, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what should be dine with this redirect, but the current target seems incorrect. For one, this term could refer to several subjects on the Retreat disambiguation page. However, Flee is a redirect to an album, and Flee (disambiguation) doesn't exist. I think the best option may be soft redirect to Wikt:fleeing. Steel1943 (talk) 00:57, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome, and I personally believe that the communities under Flée should be merged as well. However, I also want to see what the consensus here says. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:27, 19 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.

Kutru[edit]

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) 09:50, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is the name of a town in India, thus this term would be confusing for people looking for that. - TheChampionMan1234 00:07, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - There seems to be no notable primary target. This applies to people's names, to the aforementioned town, etc. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:58, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per CWM. Rubbish computer 13:58, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:REDLINK as towns in India often eventually get articles here, and I don't understand what this word has to do with our canine friends. There is an outside possibility of this being WP:BLP vandalism but I won't elaborate; not G10 worthy. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:09, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the Gujarati word for ‘dog’. Gorobay (talk) 23:32, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The word indeed can be 'dog', but-- as stated above-- it also can be used as a person's name or nickname as well as other uses. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:28, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just explaining what this word has to do with our canine friends. Gorobay (talk) 04:16, 19 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_September_18&oldid=1083985199"