This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 9, 2016.
Purgatively
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.
Originally targeted laxative. Speedy declined and retargeted to Purge disambiguation. This word does not mean purge, in any possible sense of the word. While purgative does mean laxative, this means that purgatively basically means laxatively, which makes no sense at all.
Oiyarbepsy (
talk)
05:35, 2 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: To discuss Patar knight's proposal.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Deryck C.21:39, 9 June 2016 (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.
Intimating
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.
Neelix speedies, all declined, as forms of intimate. All of these are verb forms. Intimate, as a verb, means to imply or state. Nothing at the disambiguation page has this meaning, so none of these are logical terms for any of them.
Oiyarbepsy (
talk)
05:30, 2 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: To discuss Patar knight's proposal.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Deryck C.21:38, 9 June 2016 (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.
Template:Aït Bouaddou Villages
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.
Page was originally created as a template. It's been moved to the mainspace, and this redirect has essentially become implausible. Can't imagine anything going through this. —
Andy W.(talk ·ctb)21:32, 9 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete or speedy delete I often request speedy deletion of redirects from moves out of template space as CSD G6 (uncontroversial) or G7 {{db-author}}. I don't know of any reason to keep these, unless they have active links that need the Template: prefix for some reason. (I've seen this once or twice, but they were eventually deleted, anyway.) —PC-XT+21:03, 13 June 2016 (UTC) 21:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
List of games considered the best
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.
"List of games considered the best" was the former and original title of the article (not mentioned in previous nom). Per #4 of
WP:RFD#KEEP, "redirects resulting from page moves should not normally be deleted without good reason". External sites who linked to this article in 2014 & before used the old name, so deleting this redirect breaks those links.
This redirect sees substantial use:
[1] shows ~40-80 hits a day, which is considerable!
The talk page of the target article was not notified. (Also, either the RFD tag wasn't added to the redirect, or I plain missed it on my watchlist.)
The redirect is harmless and useful,
WP:RFD#KEEP #5. This is more a "re-litigate the previous RFD" comment, and I believe the above 2 reasons are the most important ones, but the nominator's concern about confusion is unfounded. I don't think an article ranking sports is likely to ever exist (find out which of Baseball, Cricket, & Rugby is the best!), same with many other types of games, and if such an article ever IS created ("List of board games considered the best", perhaps), then the redirect can be changed into a disambiguation page harmlessly. There are tons and tons and tons of redirects from phrases that don't quite exactly match the topic; that's okay, though!
SnowFire (
talk)
20:24, 9 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete per my previous nomination of this redirect. In addition, page views of a redirect do not prove that the readers are arriving at their intended target, but rather that they are just searching the term. In a case like this, there is a possibility that this redirect is viewed because it might auto-populate in the search field when typing a similar string of words, and then click on this because it appeared first. (This part is just speculation, but it may add to the lack of ability to prove that this redirect leads to the correct target by page views alone.) The best option for this redirect would be for it to be deleted so that the search function of
Special:Search can provide the reader with search results rather than force them to immediately be forwarded to the redirect's current target. (By the way, thank you
SnowFire for informing me of this discussion, even though you knew beforehand that I had an opposing viewpoint. That proves a very fair character on your part!)
Steel1943 (
talk)
20:39, 9 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Disambiguate per Peter James and nom, as I think such a page would be more useful than deletion in cases of old links while also providing some help in navigating after search-completion entices people here, making it pretty harmless, I hope. —PC-XT+20:42, 13 June 2016 (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.
Present-day proponents of subordinating horses by force
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.
Unlikely search term. "Present-day" will be inaccurate in a couple of seconds, "force" is nowhere in the target article and the use of the word "proponents" seems unclear.
Steel1943 (
talk)
20:22, 9 June 2016 (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.
Current frigates
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 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.
Super arts
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 phrase is not mentioned in the target article. The only connection I could find to this phrase has to do with this apparently being the name for special moves in the Street Fighter video game series. And
Super Art Fight exists, but the redirect seems to not be an official nickname for that subject.
Steel1943 (
talk)
19:54, 9 June 2016 (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.
Super adapter (Mega Man)
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 term of the redirect is not mentioned at the target. Per the redirect's history, it was previously an article that was merged into the target article, but it seems that the content of the redirect is no longer present in the target article. Also, the redirect's history as an article seems to fail
WP:NOTWIKIA as an encyclopedic subject.
Steel1943 (
talk)
19:42, 9 June 2016 (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.
Super admin
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. There have been plenty of retargeting suggestions, but most participants are fine with the status quo. --
Tavix(
talk)21:00, 16 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete the page was created by a sockpuppet to point to a page that was almost immediately deleted. I changed the target, but never really felt it was the best place to redirect.
Primefac (
talk)
00:09, 11 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep. I've heard it used for administrators that have the ability of granting superuser privilege for individual accounts on specific machines, also I've heard it used to describe root account vs accounts that have sudo-like access. I'd also support retargeting but could see both
superuser and
system administrator being valid targets as one describes the permissions and the other the role, so leaning towards DAB page as target.
PaleAqua (
talk)
18:24, 11 June 2016 (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 "ivory torch" and titles not separately discussed; delegate decision of the rest to admin-participant
Patar knight to retarget or delete as he deems most plausible.
Deryck C.11:53, 19 June 2016 (UTC)reply
The connection between the redirects and the target is unclear. These terms also seem to have notability as standalone concepts used in other forms of media (for example, a "jeweled scarab" may make some think of
The Mummy (1999 film).) These phrases seem to not be in the target article.
Steel1943 (
talk)
19:29, 9 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Actually, it turns out that there were only 4 more that met the same criteria as the other grouped redirects. They have been added in the same edit as this comment.
Steel1943 (
talk)
16:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Redirect/DAB possible ones.
Jeweled scarab should be redirected to
Jewel scarab as a plausible search term.
Egyptian sceptre should either go to
Was or
Sekhem scepter with a hatnote to the other, a DAB page, or retargeted to
Sceptre#Antiquity, though the last one does not mention the Sekhem scepter.
The others can probably just be deleted unless they are frequently and uniquely associated with Zork, which does not seem to be the case (especially for "Crystal Trident", which seems to be better associated with
[3], though that's a weak basis for a redirect). ----
Patar knight - chat/contributions01:46, 11 June 2016 (UTC)reply
These all seem like plausible options ... with the exception of the retargeting option for
Ivory torch. That seems like a bit of a
WP:SURPRISE since the reference seems to be about "torching ivory" to destroy it.
Steel1943 (
talk)
15:20, 11 June 2016 (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.
Delete as ambiguous/implausible - as it stands now, it redirs to a dab page for Super. However, the hyphen denotes a prefix form, and there's nothing on the dab that refers to the redir as such. So, if I'm going to look for "super", I don't need to type "super-", and if I'm looking for "super-", I'm not going to find it.
MSJapan (
talk)
17:21, 9 June 2016 (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.
Rechargeable CMOS battery
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.
Retarget to
CMOS Battery Any battery could have potential to be rechargeable, but the article on a PC isn't a likely target. If a company has patented the term, then redirect to that.
AngusWOOF (
bark •
sniff)
16:52, 9 June 2016 (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.
Small accident
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 word "small" is nowhere in the target article, leaving the term "small accident" undefined, leaving readers who arrive at the target article trying to figure out what specific set of circumstances make an
accident a "small accident". Also, the word "small" is subjective and ambiguous.
Steel1943 (
talk)
14:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
List of rivers of Saudi Arabia
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.
Keep, the reason this redirect exists is to prevent List of rivers of Saudi Arabia from being a dead link in the lists of rivers template - lists of wadis seems the next best place to send someone looking for info on rivers in a country where they don't exist. Punishing someone for not knowing what a wadi is seems counterproductive.
Kmusser (
talk)
13:26, 11 June 2016 (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. The slang association, and the resulting lack of a widely agreed topic fit, point towards deletion as the most plausible outcome.
Deryck C.11:44, 19 June 2016 (UTC)reply
The words "big" and "tit" are both ambiguous. Also,
Tit, a disambiguation page, is an inappropriate target since no subjects in that page are not referred to specifically as "big tit".
Steel1943 (
talk)
05:06, 9 June 2016 (UTC)reply
The way I'm reading this comment's rationale, this seems more like a reason to delete these redirects so that Wikipedia's search function can help readers determine what subject they are looking for without being forced to go to a specific page due to an existing redirect.
Steel1943 (
talk)
06:10, 9 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep/retarget all to
tit. This follows our general policy of creating valid redirects even for vulgar terms, with the delightful side effect of helping all the people searching for "big tits" to learn more about the members of the family
Paridae while at the same time not preventing them from reading aaaaaaaalll the way down the page to find their intended target in the unlikely event of this being a prurient search -- something, of course that
I'm shocked, shocked to even consider might ever happen. Consider, for example, the magnificent disambig page
wiener, which has much the same effect. --
The Anome (
talk)
08:02, 9 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Tit is a disambiguation page. Redirecting a term which does not describe a valid alternative name for all of the subjects on the page, is not an exact title match with the disambiguation page's title and/or isn't a title with capitalization, punctuation and/or differences with the use of the word "the" is misleading and inaccurate. I'm pretty sure that none of the subjects at
Tit#People are referred to as "big tit" or "big tits". Also, the argument trying to compare
Wiener having a similar situation regarding "big" redirects is not true since the
only incoming redirects to Wiener are Wieners and Wiener (disambiguation);
Big wiener,
Big wieners,
Big-wiener and
Big-wieners do not exist.
Steel1943 (
talk)
13:45, 9 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Indeed they don't. But if they did, "big wieners" etc. should all redirect to the "wiener" disambig page, as we don't know which kind of wiener might be intended. The analogy with "tit" here is perfect. --
The Anome (
talk)
12:46, 11 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Retarget all to
breast, which is the only subject on
tit which is commonly referred to with the "big" modifier. It's extremely unlikely someone who comes here (or anywhere on the internet) and types "big tit" is going to be looking for a
bearded reedling (bearded tit) of above-average size.
Ivanvector🍁 (
talk)
16:32, 9 June 2016 (UTC)reply
The statement that the phrase "big tit" may only refer to
breast may not be the case. Thinking I had heard the word "tit" used otherwise in the past, I recalled that I once heard the word "tit" used as an insult. Sure enough,
wikt:tit and third party sources confirm this. Apparently, the word "tit" is sometimes used as an insult in
British English. Like most insults that are a single-word noun, the word "big" can be placed behind it.
Steel1943 (
talk)
19:25, 9 June 2016 (UTC)reply
These pages might have future retargets by other editors. This RfD might sync them for now, but I have a feeling it won't last. —
Andy W.(talk ·ctb)07:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete, and I feel like I'm defaulting to it since it seems like there isn't a good enough target from the above discussion, so perhaps it's best to let the
search engine deal with it. --
Tavix(
talk)17:02, 17 June 2016 (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.
Big ldea
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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Big killer
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.
Note: The edit history of a redirect targeting these redirects' target, List of causes of human deaths by rate, has the term "big killer" to describe the topic of the list, but the term as used in that article was not referenced. Also, I was unable to find any connection between "big killer" and any specific term either through search engines.
Steel1943 (
talk)
04:51, 9 June 2016 (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.
A bootable USB is not necessarily a live USB. A live USB contains a full OS, rather than, for example, the Windows XP, Vista, 7, 8, 10 setup files to install the OS from the USB. -
Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234)
03:04, 9 June 2016 (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.
Windows 10 (for PCs and tablets)
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 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.
Game of Thrones (season 8)
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.
I am taking this to RfD since another editor has twice attempted, incorrectly, to speedy delete this redirect. I will inform that editor of this RfD. At the moment, I am neutral with respect to deletion.Safiel (
talk)
01:46, 9 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete The season has not been confirmed at all, and the edit summary of the article's creation ("It's been confirmed to be the last season of the show.") is completely false and based upon speculation.
Alex|The|Whovian?01:56, 9 June 2016 (UTC)reply
WP:CRYSTAL clearly says that it only applies to "
unverifiable speculation", that "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced," and that "Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included." The fact that there has been open speculation by the people in charge of the show about needing an eighth season is verifiable to reliable sources. Unless you're asserting that the creators/showrunners of Game of Thrones and the president of HBO programming are not "reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in [the] field" for noted HBO show Game of Thrones, I fail to see how this should be deleted per
WP:CRYSTAL. ----
Patar knight - chat/contributions07:48, 9 June 2016 (UTC)reply
"We need a season 8" doesn't sound like "We're going to produce season 8" just like CEOs of sports teams wanting to re-sign their players going into free agency.
AngusWOOF (
bark •
sniff)
16:56, 9 June 2016 (UTC)reply
In that scenario though, if the coach and the GM both openly say in reliable sources that they're in discussions with the player and that the current plan was to sign them, then it would be fine to include that per
WP:CRYSTAL, since it is verifiable speculation about the future. ----
Patar knight - chat/contributions05:03, 10 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Right, but that does not mean to put the player on the roster. But that redirect may have to do for now to funnel traffic as with
Star Wars 9 which has been in discussion since the 1980s with things making it more a certainty from 2015.
AngusWOOF (
bark •
sniff)
16:47, 10 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Retarget as suggested above. It does not violate
WP:CRYSTAL to do this because the subject has been covered by reliable sources. The fact that those sources are still largely speculating at this stage is not a problem, as
WP:CRYSTAL allows us to report speculation by reliable sources as well as discussion about the likelihood that future events will happen. Hut 8.521:19, 9 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete I began to close this as delete, but was afraid I was just doing a supervote. I'm not satisfied with the retargeting option because any potential season 8 is more than just about the "adaptation schedule". A reader might reasonably expect to find information about its casting, development, etc. Such a retarget makes sense at this moment, but may very soon not, given that we're talking about recent events here. Given CRYSTAL, I would much rather make clear to a reader that we don't really cover this topic, instead of just diverting him or her to where we happen to have a few crumbs of speculation at this time. --
BDD (
talk)
15:05, 17 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete. I actually agree that
WP:CRYSTAL doesn't strictly apply here because there has been discussion of a prospective season eight in reliable sources, but the amount of information we have about season eight is too insubstantial and too patchy to fit into any article we've got so far. With that in mind, I don't think retargeting to the adaptation schedule will help readers very much. Better to keep it a redlink and quietly admit to readers that there we don't have useful information on it.
Deryck C.16:37, 17 June 2016 (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 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.