Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 6

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

August 6

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 6, 2015.

Hoseman

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) 14:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target article, and not finding any references that the redirect is a synonym for the target article, nor finding any references that show the redirect to be an actual existing word. Steel1943 (talk) 23:59, 6 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.

Wikipedia:Safe sex

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) 14:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per

WP:RFD#D5, nonsense. This is virtually unused, and doesn't make any sense. -- Tavix (talk) 23:35, 6 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.

User:Wzyboy

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. Retargeted to the user's user talk page. --BDD (talk) 13:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This used to be an actual userpage, don't know why this was redirected. -

ChampionMan1234 23:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Keep - The user has chimed in, and the page in its current form appears to be their preference for their userpage. While every namespace is part of the project and belongs to the community in a certain sense, as I stated before: leeway is given on certain things within a users own userspace. Striken per the user which whom the page belongs comment below and taking Paine Ellsworth comments into consideration.Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete extremely harmful. People going to the userpage would then get bounced to the main portal, and then pressing [talk] to leave a talk page message to this user will end up having it in the wrong place -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:47, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The
    guideline "guides" us "If you prefer to put nothing [on your user page], then you can redirect it to your user talk page for the convenience of other editors. This plus in the section titled "What may I not have in my user pages?", there is a subsection titled User pages that look like articles. A user page redirected to any mainspace page makes the user page appear to be an article in mainspace. – Paine  07:23, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Procedural close per the discussion above and its results. The user whose namespace this page resides in has decided to take a route which should prove non-controversial.Godsy(TALKCONT) 09:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - users can do what they like with their user page, messing around with it is intolerably dickish. WilyD 09:54, 7 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.

The Benefits of Blogging

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) 14:07, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTGUIDE. Steel1943 (talk) 23:06, 6 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.

Giullare

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) 14:07, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FORRED; jesters are not exclusive to any Italian-speaking culture. Steel1943 (talk) 19:53, 6 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.

Feet

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 ). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Foot. --BDD (talk) 14:01, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the article

WP:PLURALPT. Steel1943 (talk) 19:44, 6 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.

Why the federal income tax is illegal

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) 14:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a QA site. GZWDer (talk) 19:14, 6 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.

Why a circle was devided in to 360 degrees

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 ). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 14:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a QA site. GZWDer (talk) 19:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is it?
catfood, does not seem unreasonable. Si Trew (talk) 22:23, 6 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.

Why we have a food Chain

Why there are no extraterrestrials

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 ). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 13:59, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a QA site. GZWDer (talk) 19:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it's an A site, not a Q site. Si Trew (talk) 22:25, 6 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.

Why did egyptians build pyramids?

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 ). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 02:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a QA site. GZWDer (talk) 19:11, 6 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.

Why balls bounce?

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) 13:59, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a QA site. GZWDer (talk) 19:10, 6 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.

Why are soap operas so popular

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 ). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 13:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a QA site. GZWDer (talk) 19:09, 6 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.

Why animals don't have wheels

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 14#Why animals don't have wheels

Which law requires Americans to pay direct income tax on their labor

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) 13:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a QA site. GZWDer (talk) 19:08, 6 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 did life start?

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 ). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 02:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a QA site. GZWDer (talk) 19:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

What did jfk do

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 ). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 13:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a QA site. GZWDer (talk) 19:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per

computer 19:09, 6 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.

African people

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 ). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Demographics of Africa. --BDD (talk) 02:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

African people is not just about the

native ethnic groups, it has to do with the people who live in Africa or descend from any of the continent's populations. For example, there are African people of European descent and Category:African people of Asian descent. That said, I request that this redirect should be retargeted to Demographics of Africa or dabified to include Demographics of Africa as well as many other pages such as Black people that are related to African people. Stanleytux (talk) 19:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment I was just explaining that Native ethnic groups of Africa isn't the only the topic relating to African people on the English wiki. A disambiguation page will list the other topics that are associated with this topic. The dab European people is a similar case. Stanleytux (talk) 07:50, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly; a dab will merely list topics. It will not explain the relationship between them, nor will any of the listed pages. It is better to have an article that is a stub, even, then to have a disambiguation page that hints at an important concept but fails to cover it or point to any coverage of it. Compare
    T
    13:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • keep until an article is written. The target is relevant to the topic, and is better than nothing. Disambiguation is not really better for reasons already given above. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to
    Americo-Liberians descent from Africans but their culture originates in 19th-century North America. As for the African diaspora, they are spread worldwide but several of them have no more connection to the continent than a distant ancestry. The article Black people can't be properly connected to Africa alone, since it also covers groups such as Indigenous Australians due to their skin color. Dimadick (talk) 21:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Retarget to
    Ethnic groups of Africa. The see also there has a list of just about every other article someone would want. -- Tavix (talk) 18:26, 14 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.

Where to buy marmite

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 26#Where to buy marmite

Where do babies come from

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) 13:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a QA site. GZWDer (talk) 19:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

What should pregnant women eat

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 ). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 13:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a QA site. GZWDer (talk) 19:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Siuenti, let's face it these are coming in droves of "how"s "why"s and "information about"s. We don't need the whys and wherefores, are trying to be a proper encylopaedia. We don't put "how to" or "why" in front of ever article title or we have a combinatorial explosion which does not help readers to search as they have to drift through countless redirects on their search only to end up at the same target. Add little to little and you have a big heap, as Ovid said. These do not help but hinder a search: that is what the search engine is for. Si Trew (talk) 22:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per above, and because I think this borders on medical advice, which is
    forbidden. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:04, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Well,
tax resister, which kills two birds with one stone. (Wasn't it Benjamin Franklin in Poor Richard's Almanack who said there are only two truths in this world: Death and Taxes?) Si Trew (talk) 00:22, 7 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 is paper made

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 20#How is paper made

How is glass made

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 20#How is glass made

Wiki project

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was move
Wiki project there. --BDD (talk) 13:48, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Wikipedia:Don't abbreviate "Wikipedia" as "Wiki"!. Probably retarget to Wiki. GZWDer (talk) 18:50, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete due to confusion with
    WP:XNR if it was. Steel1943 (talk) 18:59, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • @BDD: I added WikiProject to this nomination since in my opinion, both redirects should share the same fate, whatever that is decided to be per consensus. Steel1943 (talk) 19:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've just ended up here because, coincidentally, I was hoping to find an article about the WikiProject concept, so I would know "what kind of thing is Wikipedia:WikiProject Mills?" for example. --Northernhenge (talk) 09:54, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the draft.
WP:WPNOTRS will be a challenge, as it would be for any article about Wikipedia itself. --Northernhenge (talk) 10:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
I have advanced the draft some - there are actually a surprising number of sources that discuss WikiProjects. In fact, I think the draft as it now stands is ready to be moved to mainspace.
T
15:55, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
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 Dry Gulch Kid

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 ). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete.
WP:INVOLVED close given the size of the backlog and clear consensus. --BDD (talk) 17:30, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Maybe we shouldn't cover movies at all until they're out in theaters. This was apparently a film project of Willie Nelson's, but it must be abandoned now, and it's not mentioned on his article. The movie was listed in the filmographies for Nelson and Johnny Knoxville as a 2011 film, but I removed those, as that clearly isn't accurate. BDD (talk) 18:19, 6 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.

Chuck Goff Jr.

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 ). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete.
WP:INVOLVED close given the size of the backlog and clear consensus. --BDD (talk) 17:29, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Google results tell me this person was Toby Keith's "longtime bassist" until his death, not long before this redirect was created. But he's not mentioned at Keith's article, and looking over the personnel of Keith's albums, there were usually other bassists. It does look like Goff co-wrote some of Keith's songs, but I'm thinking he's either notable or he's not. BDD (talk) 18:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if needbe: Honestly, alot of the messages I get notifying me this is being discussed reminds me I even created the redirect. I create them in the event myself or someone else has enough substance to create an article. Two years later, it doesn't seem that way. Rusted AutoParts 18:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.
    computer 18:15, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per
    WP:REDLINK: per both nominator's and creator's rationale, if someone wants to write the article they can, but the current target does not serve readers. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:41, 10 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.

Redirects to Yahoo! Answers

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 ). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete, delete, delete, and retarget to
WP:INVOLVED close given the size of the backlog and clear consensus. --BDD (talk) 17:27, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

These were all created by the same user, who is now indefinitely blocked for vandalism. None of these concept appear at the target article, and the last one points to a nonexistent section. --BDD (talk) 17:28, 6 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.

November Yankee

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. There's no support for keeping this as is, disagreement as to where else it could point, and some appetite for deletion. "As you know, you [close an XfD] with the [discussion] you have, not the [discussion] you might want or wish to have at a later time." --BDD (talk) 13:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly retarget to

ChampionMan1234 03:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Support ChampionMan. – Illegitimate Barrister 03:58, 30 July 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, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All alternatives presented above have a good chance of
    red link this title so that the reader can try and figure out what they were actually trying to locate. Steel1943 (talk) 19:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
How would November Yankee astonish anyone when they arrive at a DAB explaining its various uses? If they don't, the remedy is to make the DAB better, not to delete the R to it. Si Trew (talk) 00:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For it to not be astonishing if it redirected to NY (disambiguation) would require assuming the prerequisite that our readers have an initiate understanding and awareness of the existence of NATO phonetic alphabet. Knowledge of this cannot be automatically assumed. (I bet there's a policy established for something like that, but I'm not up to finding it right now.) Steel1943 (talk) 03:32, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I found an essay that sort of describes this:
WP:ACLUE (which could also probably use some expansion.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:52, 7 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.

📵

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, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is U+1F4F5 📵 NO MOBILE PHONES. Driving safety is but one reason among many to forbid mobile phones. There is no appropriate target, so delete. Gorobay (talk) 14:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Emojipedia has drawings for this on different platforms. Doesn't display on my Win7 system. Delete per Gorobay. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:40, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Even if all version were the same a picture of a cellphone with a red line across it would not necessary imply driving while taking phone in the first place so I agree.--76.65.42.44 (talk) 02:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's irrelevant how or whether the glyph is rendered: we can't and shouldn't guess what fonts people use (or if e.g. they are using a blind reader). As redirects on the whole these emoji are harmless if they go to the right target; but in this case it doesn't. So... Si Trew (talk) 05:51, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per
    WP:RFD#D5 makes no sense. I see a weak retarget to section Etiquette in technology#Cell phone etiquette, I guess, but there are óther places where, in some jurisdictions, mobile phones by law must not be used, so it's not just a matter of etiquette... petrol station forecourts, aeroplanes, and so on (as Gorobay originally implied but did not enumerate, and I'm not sure we want an article on it since it will vary considerably by jurisdiction). Si Trew (talk) 05:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Retarget to Etiquette in technology#Cell phone etiquette per Si Trew. Can't seem to find a better target at the time being. It's problematic redirecting this to a driving topic specifically (not to say it's disallowed everywhere while driving) because there are other places phone usage isn't allowed.Godsy(TALKCONT) 05:50, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 13:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As Si Trew says, retargeting is inappropriate because there are many reasons to ban cell phones other than etiquette. Gorobay (talk) 14:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good retarget find, Si, but I disagree this time (surprise!) - I think that "etiquette" and "prohibition" are far apart in terms of meaning, but also not exactly opposites. The glyph certainly implies cell phones prohibited (it's called "no mobile phones") but etiquette does not imply prohibition. I prefer deletion for this one. (As I noted above - no duplicate !vote) Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I struck it above but my Delete notvote in doing so seems to have got lost. So I repeat it now: I am never sure whether after the relist those above are essentially blanked, since if they are I can say it again, if not, I have to revise the past. Si Trew (talk) 00:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as appears to have no appropriate target.
    computer 18:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per Ivanvector. There appears to be no ideal target. Reach Out to the Truth 00:35, 7 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.

Piece of junk

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. 10:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given that this redirect's current target is a disambiguation page, I don't feel that this redirect is appropriate since it leads the reader to think that both the phrase is ambiguous, and that the terms "piece of junk" and "junk" are synonymous. From my experiences, the term "junk" in this phrase refers to waste or scrap, but this phrase more relates to a broken item, so I'm not sure there is any good target for this phrase. Steel1943 (talk) 03:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment "
    Piece_of_shit redirects to "shit" and "piece of junk" is a synonym for "piece_of_shitt" when that is applied to inanimate objects. And the article "shit" covers the term "piece_of_shit" -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep. Even though I've dabified the Junk page a bit and mentioned the phrase in the Waste-linked entry, I'm still torn between leaving this redirect as is vs. retargeting to the Waste article. The latter might be confusing to readers, so I lean somewhat toward the former. – Paine  17:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Off topic) Ha, I didn't know we had {{
-r}} as a shortcut: I've been surprised that I had to type the longwinded {{no redirect}} all the time. That's handy to know. Si Trew (talk) 05:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
You're not alone. I went through a long period where I linked to the URL, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:abcxyz&redirect=no abcxyz] before I even found the {{
-r}} takes a display parameter: {{-r|Redirect title|Your title choice}} displays as Your title choice. – Paine  14:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 13:49, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
n.b. It no longer is. I removed that entry, as it failed
MOS:DABMENTION. --BDD (talk) 13:37, 10 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.

Visa requirements for American citizens

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. Please use RM for a move. --BDD (talk) 13:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

to make way for a move A8v (talk) 10:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

{{subst:Requested move|Visa requirements for American citizens|reason=Insert your reason here}}
on Talk:Visa requirements for United States citizens. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 11:40, 6 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.

ARTICLE TITLE

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 and salt. JohnCD (talk) 10:51, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Makes no sense, implausible search term (not for reader space) -

ChampionMan1234 09:24, 6 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.

Villa Visonó

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) 10:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per

(Talk page) ★ 08:33, 6 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.

Vrhnje

Wikipedia:@Mufee6

Lights out

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 ). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. --BDD (talk) 13:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to

WP:BOLDly but perhaps wrongly at the target, except the link to the Wiktionary entry. We don't have lights-out, which Wiktionary seems to prefer. Si Trew (talk) 05:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Keep - I feel like the average person searching for "Lights out" most likely is thinking of it as an exact title for something, whether a song or an album or a film or whatever else... I agree with what's stated above. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:08, 11 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.

Redirects to Main Page

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. The end of an era? --BDD (talk) 14:48, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Arbitrary break (Redirects to Main Page)

I have decided not to list them all here due to the fact that there are lots, but they are all

ChampionMan1234 05:50, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

resolved problems and notes regarding the nomination
  • Comment. re the AWB request, actually I'd be happier if you keep this one as a test case, and then list all the others if we get consensus: I'm not sure a bulk listing is a good idea here.
Wikipédia:Accueil principal has come up before (but not Accueil on its own): most recently at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_1#Wikipédia:Accueil_principal. In fact been deleted three times in Spring 2010 and twice in the first half of 2014, but perhaps editors' opinions were influenced by it being in a non-English namespace anyway.
German Hauptseite came up some three weeks later (Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_26#Hauptseite) and that was closed with no consensus.
Since these two have different outcomes I am not sure we have much general consensus on these. I think there have been discussions for redirects to the main page from other languages, but my search is not being very co-operative. Other editors often do better. Si Trew (talk) 06:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@
ChampionMan1234 08:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
@
TheChampionMan1234: I'm so glad you made that into a list, it made it super easy for me to add the whole list to the nomination in about 5 minutes. I copy and pasted the list into excel, found and replaced every instance of the string " (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | views)", leaving just the redirect on each line (all in column A). Then I pasted {{subst:rfd2|multi=yes|redirect=RedirectName2|target=TargetArticle2}} into B1, replaced TargetArticle2 with Main Page and removed RedirectName2. I actually split this into two columns at this point, splitting it after "redirect=". Defining A1 as the redirect itself, B1 as the first half of {{rfd2}} and C1 as the second half of {{rfd2}}, I created a concatenate function in D1 (=CONCATENATE(B1,A1,C1)). I pull the column down, copy and pasted column D into this thread, and now they're all added. -- Tavix (talk) 14:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
@
WP:RFFLs. There was 6 delete !votes and 0 keep !votes which seems like a strong enough test to me. -- Tavix (talk) 14:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks. I had AWB completely set-up to do that task when I noticed you were doing it that way. To each his own, I guess. I'm going to collapse this since it's a pretty lengthy section that's been resolved. -- Tavix (talk) 15:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...Unless a reader is looking up these terms with the intention to find the version of the Main page for the language of Wikipedia which that language refers. Steel1943 (talk) 21:07, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom, disregarding my "weak retarget" vote for Forside above. Steel1943 (talk) 21:08, 8 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.

Tucking in (parenting, food)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 19#Tucking in (parenting, food)

Untitled 10th ROH PPV

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) 10:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per

WP:RFD#D2. This isn't untitled. -- Tavix (talk) 00:39, 6 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.

Robert E. MacArthur

"untitled" self-titled albums

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 ). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete all. JohnCD (talk) 10:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as confusing because the album is not untitled. Self titling an album doesn't make it "untitled", it just has the same name as the band/artist. Note: if the album is known as "untitled", the article doesn't mention it as such. For example Blink-182 (album) is also known as "untitled" and the article makes that clear. -- Tavix (talk) 00:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Redirects beginning with "Untitled" should generally be deleted, except in certain cases such as the Blink182's, which Tarvix mentioned above.Godsy(TALKCONT) 04:32, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW, Untitled NOFX album exists as a redirect because I moved the article from that title 4 years ago. There is an old discussion at Talk:NOFX (2011 EP)#Article title about whether the release is titled NOFX or is untitled. In either case I don't think it very likely that a reader would type "untitled NOFX album" as a search term, and there are plenty of other ways for them to find their way to the article (NOFX discography, and {{NOFX}} at the bottom of every NOFX-related article), so I have no particular objection to the redirect being deleted. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --
    computer 18:45, 6 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.

Untitled albums with titles

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 ). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete all. JohnCD (talk) 10:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as confusing because these albums are not untitled; they have titles. -- Tavix (talk) 00:08, 6 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.