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) 10:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ... Well I guess you do drink it but it's a lemon ..... Not really sure as to the point of the redirect ? ... Anyway useless redirect. –Davey2010Talk 01:12, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There probably are people who drink it, but I'm sure they're acutely aware that this would be typically be considered a freakish search term. Alsee (talk) 02:48, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't see how this redirect is helpful. Who would search for a additive, that's not itself a drink, like this? CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:09, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. It can be added to drinks, but it is not intended to be or commonly drank by itself.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 19:29, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see a problem with this redirect. According to the drink article, a drink is a "liquid intended for human consumption" and that's exactly what this is. Our article on juice describes juice as a drink, so if Jif isn't a drink, then it's not a juice either, and we've got problems with the current disambiguator. It seems that most of the above !votes are confusing "drink" with "mixed drink" or think the product is actually a lemon. In addition, the redirect isn't ambiguous since peanut butter isn't liquid. --Tavix(talk) 23:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was not thinking just mixed drink, but any kind of drink. Lemon juice is juice but it is not a drink. Legacypac (talk) 01:58, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why isn't it a drink? It is a liquid and it's intended for human consumption. That's what a drink is. --Tavix(talk) 02:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So is cough syrup, also not a drink. Lemonade is a drink though. Legacypac (talk) 03:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So why is lemonade a drink and lemon juice not a drink? I'm not seeing how one can be called a drink and the other one wouldn't. --Tavix(talk) 05:11, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why is lemonade a drink and sugar is not? I presume because we don't label things we don't drink for pleasure as "drinks". Soup is not a drink either but you can drink it. Legacypac (talk) 05:34, 2 February 2016 (UTC) (edit conflict)[reply]
Lemon juice concentrate, including Jif, is not a drink because it is not normal to drink it. It can be drunk, but it is no more a drink than soy sauce, which similarly may be drunk, in small volumes. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:28, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Lemon juice serves a condiment purpose, but it may also be a drink. For example, this article lays out the health benefits of drinking lemon juice. On the other hand, drinking soy sauce can be deadly. --Tavix(talk) 16:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've read articles about the health benefits of drinking olive oil and vinegar. Are they drinks? --BDD (talk) 16:59, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And even if so, this is a juice *concentrate*, not intended to be a drink. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:06, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'd like to point out that just because something is a 'liquid', and therefore can theoretically be consumed just by sipping it, doesn't mean that it's a 'drink'-- soup, bathtub residue, formaldehyde, perfume, barbecue sauce, and ketchup all come to mind. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
None of those items are intended to be drunk, with the exception of soup, which can or cannot be a drink depending on a few factors. Barbecue sauce and ketchup are purely condiments, used to enhance food, not for drinking. The rest of your examples are obviously not intended for human consumption. --Tavix(talk) 16:25, 3 February 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. --BDD (talk) 15:25, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Only Neelix would join these words with a dash. Delete-as-nonsense. Legacypac (talk) 23:49, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Are we still today deleting his shite ? .... I was under the impression most were wiped in September or whenever the ANI thing started ?.... Anyway as per nom .... Nothing to say other than "Only Neelix would!", –Davey2010Talk 01:14, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe this is extreme but wouldn't it be better to just nuke the lot ?, Sure some may be of use but seems unfair for everyone else having to sift through 5 pages worth of lists whilst he on the otherhand just buggers off .....–Davey2010Talk 02:22, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per-nom, unless there's some compound-adjective used-in the-context-of cultural-appropriation or maybe a-partnership between someone named-White and someone named-Guy? — Rhododendritestalk \\ 02:04, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-per-nom-person Alsee (talk) 02:39, 30 January 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. --BDD (talk) 15:11, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense shoving over English words together by Neelix. Further, there must be other things called white nose. Legacypac (talk) 23:44, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Nonsensical crap. –Davey2010Talk 01:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although a DAB might be a good idea if someone wants to build it. When I Googled whitenose -"white nose" I got 34k hits, all the top hits were fictional characters showing whitenose is low on serious use. Looking further I saw a variety of other animals turn up before the bat-disease appeared, scuttling the possibility that the current redirect could be primary topic. Alsee (talk) 02:16, 30 January 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 per nom. I can think of two instances where lyrics redirecting to a song would be appropriate: (1) First lines, especially of old songs (cf. incipit) or (2) very well known lines, such that a reader may have the line in mind but not the song. Kiss this guy almost fits the second criterion, though it's actually a misheard lyric; Oppa Gangnam Style fits it, though it has the actual song title right there as well. --BDD (talk) 23:49, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - in the context of redirects WP:NOTLYRICS really only applies to copyvios. This song ought to be public domain, and there's no question that a user performing this search is looking for this song. Ivanvector🍁 (talk) 19:38, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's at least some question. They could be misremembering the title of one of these topics. --BDD (talk) 22:41, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well here's that thing again where we try to guess that all plausible errors are equally plausible to the exact title match. They're not. Typing "when the bough breaks the cradle will fall" is far more likely to be a search for the song, rather than any of the shorter titles which use part of this lyric, probably by a significant factor. And also what Si said. Ivanvector🍁 (talk) 22:08, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. "the cradle will fall" disambiguates this from the other topics at the DAB at When the Bough Breaks; it's pointless to send an unambiguous term to a disambiguation page. Si Trew (talk) 09:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC) Reinforced to keep, below. Si Trew (talk) 06:23, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 22:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and be done with it. This was a lame creation but the target is obvious. Just close this time-sink. Alsee (talk) 01:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; it's unambiguous and hardly a problem. Nobody's going to type this when looking for anything except rock-a-bye-baby, and as noted above, NOTLYRICS doesn't particularly apply to a redirect using a public-domain text. Nyttend (talk) 02:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As others have already said, NOTLYRICS doesn't apply and while the disambiguation page is plausible, the song is better. The song page should probably be hatnoted to the disambig page, however. Rossami(talk) 06:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why would a hatnote be desirable? It would make no sense to have:
because nothing else on that DAB page is about falling cradles. Si Trew (talk) 13:35, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Theway people might remember it . DGG ( talk ) 20:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to Keep per abovementioned argument--Lenticel(talk) 01:55, 3 February 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 speedy deleted --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:40, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is mentioned at the target but is this really a proper redirect for a very common phrase or not?Legacypac (talk) 20:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sorry Neelix, Wikipedia is not your personal playground. Softlavender (talk) 21:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. It is, indeed, mentioned at the article, but I think this will likely WP:ASTONISH readers more than it will help them. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:14, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - Nonsensical crap. –Davey2010Talk 01:19, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'd genuinely like to thank Neelix for the interesting intellectual puzzle of figuring out why the fuck this redirect exists, and I'll commend them the actually interesting logic behind it. However I expect the typical reader would be ASTONISHed to find themselves caught the middle of a point-and-click logic puzzle game when they try to use Wikipedia. A logic puzzle in Latin, no less. Alsee (talk) 01:42, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete none of the reasons given in WP:RPURPOSE are appropriate here, and as notecardforfree points out, a gross violation of the principle of least astonishment. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 23:23, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - and monkeys might fly out of my butt! Ivanvector🍁 (talk) 14:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a vague synonym at best --Lenticel(talk) 00:31, 4 February 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 speedy deleted --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thoughtless redirects by Neelix. Better target please? Legacypac (talk) 20:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonsense. I think we're getting into "cry-for-help" and "professional suicide" territory here, on Neelix's part. Softlavender (talk) 21:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Elitelevel is a madeupword. Legacypac (talk) 21:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 21:56, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - Nonsensical crap. –Davey2010Talk 01:20, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete this is not the UEFA-only Wikipedia. -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 06:39, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pointless. GiantSnowman 08:24, 30 January 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 speedy deleted --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:47, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - Nonsensical crap. –Davey2010Talk 01:20, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy trout Neelix.... I mean Delete. Alsee (talk) 01:31, 30 January 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 speedy deleted --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:50, 4 February 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.
Neelix redirects that are mistargeted. Looking for suggestions to correct, Legacypac (talk) 18:31, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retargetbesmirchtodefamation (slander redirects there). It's not quite accurate, but it's a whole hell of a lot better than the current target. Delete the rest. Ivanvector🍁 (talk) 20:57, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the lot per nom - Nonsensical crap. –Davey2010Talk 01:20, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all except besmirch which can plausibly redirect to slander, as Ivan suggested. Alsee (talk) 01:23, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all except retargetbesmirch per Ivanvector. I'm not 100% happy that that's a verb, though, whereas slander is at least a noun (and a verb too of course); it borders on WP:NOTDIC. Si Trew (talk) 05:10, 30 January 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.
Is there a better target for this Neelix redirect? If someone is looking for the meaning of this word, reading about dirt will not enlighten them. Legacypac (talk) 18:29, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - dirtiness is the state of being dirty, a property which is explained at the target. While in different fields we might talk about the dirtiness of some thing (databases, radio communications and signal processing come to mind) I don't think any of those uses are either a primary target or something we could write an article about, and the disambiguation page Dirty (disambiguation) doesn't really help in this regard. Ivanvector🍁 (talk) 18:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reasonable and sensible. Andrew D. (talk) 00:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - Sorry but anything created by him has so far proven to be useless and IMHO this is no exception, Like the rest of these redirects I believe it's Nonsensical crap. –Davey2010Talk 01:21, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Dirtiness is, indeed, the state of being dirty. It seems like an alright redirect, reminding me of 'dead' going to 'death'. It's not particularly helpful, though, so maybe it should go someplace else. Maybe. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:26, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This one is a plausible grammatical variant. No better target comes to mind. Rossami(talk) 06:39, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Update: The Cleanliness antonym is elegant. Maybe better. No objection to that alternative. Rossami(talk) 01:24, 1 February 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.
American Federation of Reformed Young Mens Society[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) 15:09, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects that contain typos. The correct versions are already redirects so these just clutter up search results. Legacypac (talk) 04:18, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, at least the plural. But I am firmly on the side of apostrophe abolitionists (see Apostrophe#Criticism), so perhaps I come with mens rea. Si Trew (talk) 07:45, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:22, 29 January 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 essay has already been moved so this is moot as is. Ricky81682 (talk) 03:59, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The redirect is on target. No evidence of POV-pushing was presented. QuackGuru (talk) 16:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination is forum shopping, the redirect is very likely, WP:NPOV does not apply to the Wikipedia namespace, and even if it did, the redirect doesn't push any POV, so deletion is out of the question while the present target continues to exist. James500 (talk) 17:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This one is particular is POV pushing. Legacypac (talk) 18:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. These redirects serve no purpose. JbhTalk 18:49, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that they are trying to delete or move the page. QuackGuru (talk) 19:02, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just dealing with each situation as it comes up, and that appears to be how every other editor is dealing with it too. Legacypac (talk) 19:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What is the POV-pushing? Please present your evidence. What are you doing?QuackGuru (talk) 19:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If the target is an essay, any editor can work to improve it, which includes deleting POV misleading content. Posting all over Wikipedia questioning my edits is disruptive and demonstrates strong WP:OWNership of that page. Legacypac (talk) 20:08, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a opinion based redirect. No viable retarget. Mrfrobinson (talk) 19:41, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, and because the page is likely to be deleted or userfied. Even if the page is kept, delete because I can't even figure out what the creator had in mind when they thought "LEADERLESS" was a logical title here. Alsee (talk) 22:57, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above excellent rationales. Guy (Help!) 00:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, or possible RetargettoWikipedia:Follow the leader, although it makes slightly less sense to retarget there than it does to retarget WP:NOLEADER to that page. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 01:55, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This appears to only exist to promote an essay full of opinion. HighInBC 15:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete .. all related as above, its a protest , a couple of users, protest properly and see if you have support , don't create redirects and suchlike in an attempt to spam your issue Govindaharihari (talk) 21:05, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sloganeering for a new and unstable essay. These provocative shortcuts hider consensus finding discussions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- propaganda pushing for a very terrible essay/proposal/rant thing. ReykYO! 01:01, 2 February 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 essay has already been moved so this is moot as is. Ricky81682 (talk) 04:00, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The redirect is on target. No evidence of POV-pushing was presented. QuackGuru (talk) 16:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination is forum shopping, the redirect is very likely, WP:NPOV does not apply to the Wikipedia namespace, and even if it did, the redirect doesn't push any POV, so deletion is out of the question while the present target continues to exist. James500 (talk) 17:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. These redirects serve no purpose. JbhTalk 18:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that they are trying to delete or move the page. QuackGuru (talk) 19:02, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Opinion based redirect without any viable retarget. Mrfrobinson (talk) 19:41, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, and because the page is likely to be deleted or userfied. Even if the page is kept, delete because I can't even figure out what the creator had in mind when they thought "NOLEADER" was a logical title here. Alsee (talk) 22:58, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The target doesn't address being without leaders - for that matter, one of its proposals is WMF funding some paid editors to keep away spammers and POV pushers, which seems like the opposite of being without leaders. I can't think of any other logical target for this. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:05, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above or possibly RetargettoWikipedia:Follow the leader (which is where WP:LEADER points and may be appropriate as it makes a case against "following the leader", more or less. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 01:54, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This appears to only exist to promote an essay full of opinion. HighInBC 15:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and all related - as my comment above Govindaharihari (talk) 21:06, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sloganeering for a new and unstable essay. These provocative shortcuts hider consensus finding discussions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- propaganda pushing for a very terrible essay/proposal/rant thing. ReykYO! 01:02, 2 February 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 essay has already been moved so this is moot as is. Ricky81682 (talk) 04:02, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy retargettoWikipedia:Expert editors, a longstanding (almost 10 years old) essay on the topic. --BDD (talk) 15:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose re-targeting. Nobody should ever be encouraged to type WP:EXPERTAUTHORITY in place of WP:Expert editors. A shortcut longer than the actual page title!?! Titles are expected to comply with conservative policy on neutrality, recognizability, etc. These provocative slogan shortcuts are disruptive to mature discussions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:39, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The redirect is on target. No evidence of POV-pushing was presented. QuackGuru (talk) 16:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination is forum shopping, the redirect is very likely, WP:NPOV does not apply to the Wikipedia namespace, and even if it did, the redirect doesn't push any POV, so deletion is out of the question while the present target continues to exist. I am however prepared to accept that there is a case that the target suggested by BDD is a better one. James500 (talk) 17:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy retarget per BDD. Legacypac (talk) 18:44, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per BDD JbhTalk 18:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to the obviously relevant longstanding essay, and because the current target is likely to be deleted or userfied. On the positive side, at least this redirect title makes a lot more sense here than the other redirects to this section. Alsee (talk) 23:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (preferred) or retarget, adds only confusion as-is. Guy (Help!) 00:32, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This appears to only exist to promote an essay full of opinion. HighInBC 15:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sloganeering for a new and unstable essay. These provocative shortcuts hider consensus finding discussions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- propaganda pushing for a very terrible essay/proposal/rant thing. ReykYO! 01:03, 2 February 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 no consensus. --BDD (talk) 15:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This one is tricky, given the fact that assessing wealth (or "richness") is an inherently normative endeavor. Nevertheless, I think we should refine the targettoWealth#The upper class. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:08, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
RedirecttoUpper class. The idea of Wealth#The upper class was also reasonable, but we shouldn't redirect to a short subsection when we have a full article on the topic. Alsee (talk) 00:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's no intrinsic connection between upper class status and riches, although they're frequently correlated; consider the scene in the famous painting Marriage à-la-mode: 1. The Marriage Settlement, in which the poor upper-class viscount marries the daughter of a wealthy member of the middle class. Nyttend (talk) 02:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, the fact there's not a 100% correlation made me think of WP:XY, but I couldn't find any better target, and "wealth" discusses different types/origins of wealth. Weak keep. Si Trew (talk) 09:23, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. These terms are too vague to have either a specific target or a useful disambiguation or list page. Best let Wikipedia's search function do its job. Steel1943 (talk) 18:27, 1 February 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 keep. JohnCD (talk) 13:52, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a typo, its just splitting a real name into two real word. It took several attempts to get Google to even search for this, so this redirect is just spreading error in the world. Neelix so could be G6. Legacypac (talk) 00:18, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget or delete: It sounds more like the value or price of butter on the stock market or on the world economy. If we can find an article like that to retarget towards, then I would be for doing so. If no such article appears, Delete. Mr. Guye (talk) 00:26, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per NCFF. Commodity market mentions butter a couple times, but you wouldn't find how much butter is worth there. WP:NOTYAHOOFINANCE, anyone? --Tavix(talk) 01:15, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:46, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a plausible error when searching for a name of a person or place, otherwise all spacing errors are plausible. Ivanvector🍁 (talk) 15:52, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I hate myself for voting keep on this, but when I Googled "Butter Worth" I found at least two of the first twenty hits were in fact making this error. One of those was an on-line grocery store selling Mrs. Butterworth's syrup.[1] I didn't feel any desire to look any further through the remaining 114k hits. If people *are* making the error, and stores are advertising this error, we need to lower our definition of "plausible" to include it. Alsee (talk) 00:32, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is significantly different from other spacing issues, e.g. "Butte rworth"; if nothing else, it's a compound word broken into its components. Aside from the issues of what butter is worth on the commodity market, it's a plausible mistake when a grocery store is selling Mrs. Butter Worth's Sugar Free Syrup; unlike us, they lose money when they make typos (it's harder for would-be buyers to find their products if they misspell the names), so they have every reason to fix this mistake, and to this point they haven't. Nyttend (talk) 01:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep'as{{R from incorrect spelling}}. And I am quite glad if people can't buy "sugar-free syrup", that rather sounds like a contradiction in terms. Si Trew (talk) 05:18, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plausible error, especially given the way that brand name is generally printed on their products. Rossami(talk) 06:44, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plausible typo, harmless, so we keep.Just Chilling (talk) 02:21, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well, given what Alsee found, the argument for this error's implausibility is provably wrong. Ivanvector🍁 (talk) 15:16, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plausible typo --Lenticel(talk) 00:33, 4 February 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 (changed to Redirect; see below). I found this by accident when looking for Willow Wood, Ohio, so I had no awareness of the topic before finding it; I was left more confused because it's not mentioned at the target. The page history shows that this was created as a stub for an Aldi brand of mushrooms and redirected to the company because the brand wasn't notable. This is a good example of a situation where redirect-not-mentioned-in-article is confusing, because someone like me is left wondering if there's some sort of mistake (or vandalism) and if the redirect should instead go somewhere else. I don't see a way in which redirecting a grocery company's brand to the grocery company is helpful, unless the brand has gotten at least a little coverage that warrants mention in the company article. Nyttend (talk) 14:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unhelpful and misleading. Softlavender (talk) 21:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It makes sense why the redirect was created, but that's extremely weak when it's not mentioned at the target article. I agree this redirect is much too easily confusing. Alsee (talk) 00:09, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as vague and unnecessary.Legacypac (talk) 00:21, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to the township unless there are enough other "Willow Woods" to justify a disambiguation page. Rossami(talk) 06:45, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Township? What township? Nyttend (talk) 14:21, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming Rossami misread the Willow Wood, Ohio article. If we're going to retarget this anywhere, my recommendation is Willow Wood, a disambiguation I just created. --Tavix(talk) 18:30, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to the new DAB. Thanks. Legacypac (talk) 18:57, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per Tavix, because that would be better than my original delete idea. Nyttend (talk) 21:57, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see that Willowood targets Willowood, Texas (which doesn't really need the "Texas" disambiguation as it stands, but was moved from the naked "Willowood" first to Willowood, Houston thence to its current target), and we also have Willowood Estates, Alberta. Perhaps we should add these to the DAB and retarget Willowood to it, too? This discussion is literally the only internal link to it, and stats are below noise level; I don't see much value in opening a separate discussion for it but I hesitate to retarget it boldly.
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 procedural close. This is a requested move, and the request has been moved to that forum. (non-admin closure) --Tavix(talk) 15:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is a requested move. Move requests should be made following the process at WP:RM. This one should be uncontroversial. Ivanvector🍁 (talk) 15:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, and I've posted the request over at WP:RMTR. This can be closed now. --Tavix(talk) 15:47, 29 January 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.
DeleteRetarget per Nyttend. A misspelling (or at best rare alternate spelling) of "lampascioni", an Italian common name (see it:Leopoldia comosa) for Leopoldia comosa (which was previously classified as Muscari comosum). Is en.Wikipedia is the place for unusual spellings of Italian words? Plantdrew (talk) 03:12, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to the Leopoldia comosa article. As long as "lampascioni" is a valid redirect, "lampasciuni" should stay, as it's an easy-to-make misspelling for an English-speaking reader. Redirects-from-typos and redirects-from-misspellings are always appropriate, as long as the mistake is plausible and the correctly-spelled version is itself appropriate. Nyttend (talk) 14:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The redirect creator gave this edit summary: It's a weird mis-spelling, but common in Toronto, Canada. That edit summary offers at least a plausible basis for a redirect. Per WP:Redirectavoid deleting such redirects if: Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. Let's just ping redirect-creator Nadiatalent. They were active just 11 days ago, although their activity is extremely intermittent. Alsee (talk) 23:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I didn't do my due diligence. I trust Nadiatalent enough to keep anything she's created. Changing my desired outcome per Nyttend. Plantdrew (talk) 18:03, 30 January 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. JohnCD (talk) 13:41, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A misspelling (or at best rare alternate spelling) of "lampascioni", an Italian common name (see it:Leopoldia comosa) for this plant. Is en.Wikipedia is the place for unusual spellings of Italian words? Plantdrew (talk) 03:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comment about Lampasciuni; unlike that, this one doesn't seem a plausible typo or other ordinary spelling error. You can easily misspell a word you hear in a foreign language (especially with vowels, as they're so often rather fluid), but "Labas" for "Lampas" as a mishearing isn't as likely, and "Labas" for "Lampas" as a mere typo isn't at all plausible. Nyttend (talk) 14:33, 29 January 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.
Multiple redirects are not needed for a brand new Wikipedia essay. Also quite misleading as this would not be the logical target of the redirect. Mrfrobinson (talk) 01:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. The section is about retaining new users. The redirect is on target. QuackGuru (talk) 01:56, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the whole essay is at AfD already. It also can't be edited by users that don't see things exactly like the author. Legacypac (talk) 02:17, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't given a logical reason for deleting the shortcut. QuackGuru (talk) 02:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is not helpful or needed. There is no policy that I'm aware of on shortcuts to essays so I believe it becomes a matter of opinion. If some knows different, I'll revisit my vote. Legacypac (talk) 03:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per Oiyarbepsy. The WikiProject on editor retention would be a much better target for this. --Majora (talk) 06:48, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This nomination is forum shopping, and 'new essay' is an invalid argument, so deletion is out of the question while the present target page continues to exist. I am however prepared to accept that there is a case that the target suggested by Oiyarbepsy is a better one. James500 (talk) 08:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How is this forum shopping? Rarely does a short essay require 4 redirects like this. Mrfrobinson (talk) 13:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Snow close this one and point it at WP:WER. ~Awilley (talk) 17:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget and trout the creator for trying to redirect unrelated traffic to their essay. HighInBC 14:59, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sloganeering for a new and unstable essay. These provocative shortcuts hider consensus finding discussions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:33, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose retargeting. The WikiProject has two excellent recommended shortcuts in its linkbox, more shortcuts, especially with unrelated turbid history, can only make it worse. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:58, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget as per above - As noted above the user deserves a trout for redirecting everyone to their crappy essay. –Davey2010Talk 00:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- propaganda pushing for a very terrible essay/proposal/rant thing. ReykYO! 01:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ricky81682: I think you might have made a mistake in haste in your cleanup after your close of this redirect's former target. If you examine the discussion above you will find: 1 argument for Keep, 3 for Delete, 1 for "Retarget or Delete", and 10 for Retarget. I know it's "not a vote" but might I suggest that you consider the argument for Wikipedia:NEWUSERRETENTION --> Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention?~Awilley (talk) 05:48, 5 February 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 essay has already been moved so this is moot as is. Ricky81682 (talk) 04:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple redirects are not needed for a brand new Wikipedia essay. Also quite misleading as this would not be the logical target of the redirect. Mrfrobinson (talk) 01:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. The section is about anti-bullying. The redirect is on target. QuackGuru (talk)
Delete the whole essay is at AfD already. Legacypac (talk) 02:16, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a logical reason for deleting the shortcut. QuackGuru (talk) 02:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If that is not a good reason, let's try - WP:ALLLCAPS redirect spam to an essay with little popular support. Legacypac (talk) 02:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget Much of the essay has nothing to do with bullying - there are parts on neutrality, enforcement of rules, better consensus making, and many various topics. I suggest Wikipedia:WikiBullying as a possible target. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:18, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per Oiyarbepsy. Wikipedia:WikiBullying is a much better target for this redirect as that explains what a BULLYFREEZONE actually is. Second choice would be to Wikipedia:Civility. --Majora (talk) 06:57, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This nomination is forum shopping, and 'new essay' is an invalid argument, so deletion is out of the question while the present target page continues to exist. James500 (talk) 08:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unlikely search term. The idea of a "bully-free zone" isn't discussed there or at Wikipedia:WikiBullying (though the latter has an image with that phrase). It's actually a pretty silly phrase. Whether it's Wikipedia, a school, or whatever, the idea is to have no bullying, not just zones without it. Compare to the red WP:NEUTRALZONE, WP:CIVILITYZONE, or any number of things I could make up. --BDD (talk) 22:00, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the target is likely to be deleted or userfied, and per BDD "BULLYFREEZONE" is an extremely poor term in general here. Alsee (talk) 23:10, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete, useless. Guy (Help!) 00:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unlikely search term, per BDD.Dialectric (talk) 01:06, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This appears to only exist to promote an essay full of opinion. HighInBC 15:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sloganeering for a new and unstable essay. These provocative shortcuts hider consensus finding discussions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose retargeting, both because it is an inappropriate redirect, and because even if not inappropriate the addition of another redirect is of no benefit. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Useless search term and as noted above the user deserves a trout for redirecting everyone to their crappy essay!. –Davey2010Talk 00:44, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- propaganda pushing for a very terrible essay/proposal/rant thing. ReykYO! 01:06, 2 February 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 essay has already been moved so this is moot as is. Ricky81682 (talk) 04:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple redirects are not needed for a brand new Wikipedia essay. Also quite misleading as this would not be the logical target of the redirect. Mrfrobinson (talk) 01:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. The section is about retaining new articles. The redirect is on target. QuackGuru (talk) 01:56, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the whole essay is at AfD already. Legacypac (talk) 02:15, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide a logical reason for deleting the shortcut. QuackGuru (talk) 02:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Soft retarget to meta:Inclusionism. The reform page covers way too many topics for this redirect to be logical. Inclusionism is what most using this redirect would be looking for. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This nomination is forum shopping, and 'new essay' is an invalid argument, so deletion is out of the question while the present target page continues to exist. I am however prepared to accept that there is a case that the target suggested by Oiyarbepsy is a better one. James500 (talk) 08:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retargettometa:Inclusionism. The current target is likely to be deleted or userfied, and the retarget covers the topic vastly better than the small random segment of that incoherent page. Alsee (talk) 23:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, of no conceivable value. Guy (Help!) 00:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:ARTICLERETENTION is not a shortcut to meta:inclusionism -- it's actually longer than just typing out that link. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 01:50, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sloganeering for a new and unstable essay. These provacative shortcuts hider consensus finding discussions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Useless search term and as noted above the user deserves a trout for redirecting everyone to their crappy essay!. –Davey2010Talk 00:44, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- propaganda pushing for a very terrible essay/proposal/rant thing. ReykYO! 01:07, 2 February 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 keep both. JohnCD (talk) 13:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Someone disturbed the CSD. We deleted a bunch of these vague Neelix redirects to this target. Need to kill some more. Legacypac (talk) 01:39, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep What are you thinking? "White van speaker", with or without hyphen, is definitely a plausible search target for getting to "White van speaker scam". You might as well propose the deletion of dihydrogen monoxide because it's a vague redirect to dihydrogen monoxide hoax. Nyttend (talk) 14:36, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I know about the Neelix mess, but I'd say these redirects have low but legitimate utility. Alsee (talk) 23:28, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The common understanding of "white van speaker" as an exact term is pretty clear, referring to the specific hoax. I agree with Nyttend . CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:30, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems plausible that someone would look for "white-van speaker" to find White Van Speaker Scam. I can understand that most of Neelix's redirects are completely unsuitable for Wikipedia, but this one has some merit. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 22:53, 1 February 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 speedy deleted (except the first). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neelix word play. A single play video game is something a person can only play once. Misleading to target this way. Related RfD [2]Legacypac (talk) 00:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep #1, delete all rest per above. MB298 (talk) 03:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, I did not mean to put up the first one. Legacypac (talk) 03:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all except the one struck by Legacypac. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 03:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all except the first one. (I already removed the template from the page). Anarchyte(work | talk) 09:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per being misleading. "Player" is common terminology and it is unlikely that "playing" or "play" will be used with this purpose. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:42, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all except struck item. Neelix's version of Engrish. (Neengrixh? I hope that's never bluelinked.) Alsee (talk) 23:39, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete these are clearly wrong, single-play (one time only) is not the same as single-player (one player) nor single-playing (one path) -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 06:42, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete all, closer's discretion on the first. Guy (Help!) 01:29, 4 February 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.
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 6#Be star
