Knowledge (XXG):Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 11

1231:

category. There are nearly 2,000 redirects in that category (which does not count thousands more that still need to be categorized), and "most" of them are very similar to this shortcut you want s-canned. They are one-, two-, three-, four- or five-letter or letter–number combinations, and "most" of them are "ambiguous". I'm certainly not the only contributor who uses them, and I use them during the vast majority of my editing time. This particular redirect is linked on the template page using the {{-r|tsh|

1536:

though, might very well lead to many other such proposals, like the ones I already mentioned in the "nowiki" code above. It's not just rcats – it's many other templates and many other shortcuts to pages other than rcats and templates in general. This shortcut, added to the top of the rcat documentation page, is just like a great many others, so if this one is deleted, then you'll need to dig in your feet for the barrage of other similar shortcut proposals that will inevitably follow.

2558:'s version is notable in-and-of-itself as a tribute. I'd at least expect it to be highlighted at the song's main page. However, all of this is neither-here-nor-there when it comes to Winehouse's version, which never was released on an album in her lifetime (while Sinatra's version came during the middle of his career as a well-promoted single where he performed it with the song's co-writer, and it was in 6560: 4438:. Whatever the current name is, the essay has existed for a long time under that other name. Deleting the redirects may break links in discussions, and make it difficult for users that did not notice the discussion to locate the page. In any case, the word "diva" would not be seen in the title or the essay itself, redirects are just a technical background thing. 3764: 1667: 1296:

save time while tackling the humongous task of finding and categorizing redirects, shortcuts just like these are truly gifts from the gift givers of the universe. I said above that there is no good deletion rationale that can persuade us to delete any of these useful shortcuts. Please, this once, please consider that it just might be true. –

5066: 2428:

album), and her cover is not mentioned at the target article. Since she is not the writer of the song and she is not mentioned at the target, this redirect can only serve to generate confusion. The creator of the page (before changed to redirect) seemed to want to call attention to the (trivial, non-notable) fact that a character from

4566:, other redirects which were found through consensus to be unduly offensive and subsequently soft redirected with an explanatory note so as to avoid breaking historical discussions but also strongly discourage their use. This is essentially the same as BDD's alternative proposal. Note also that the requested move is currently under 2893:" in the first sentence. Odd, really, to have a section "In myths" in an article disambiguated as "(mythology)": what's the rest of it about, then? "Ïn classical literature" would probably be more apt (considering there is a section "Fictional adaptations", too): and I doubt you would suggest retargetting to a section so-called. 2620:

for this to kick in, so the irony of me creating it is... well, ironic. I was waffling between the redirect and a full on AfD, since no CSD would seem to apply. This way seemed the least damaging to the intent of the creator, so I went RD despite my aforementioned dislike for this kind of RD. But it

2427:

Improbable redirect. The song was written in 1962 by Antônio Carlos Jobim and Vinicius de Moraes, not by Winehouse. Winehouse recorded a non-notable version of the song but it was not released as a single and did not appear on any album during her lifetime (appears only on a posthumous compilation

1586:

I think I understand your frustration here. Yes, this will probably lead to some similar discussions; just think of it as growing pains associated with bringing Rcats into the light. And, humbly, I think my position on template shortcuts is in line with usual consensus here: they're only problematic

1309:

Paine, I appreciate your diligence when it comes to Rcats, but we want their profile to be raised, right? We want more people to contribute to tagging redirects, and to understand the robust system we have in place for that. Precisely for that reason I want to move away from ambiguous abbreviations

1295:

I sincerely ask you to reconsider, BDD, as your influence in this matter will, I'm certain, tip the scales. The category is chock full of shortcuts just like this one, many just as ambiguous and yet useful to those who may use them. For those of us who have used these shortcuts for many years to

1535:

I see that I appear to be outnumbered here, and what this deletion will open up is that someone will start through the categories and find every shortcut they can that may be deleted from this precedent. And thank you, BDD, for your compliment, which I do consider high praise. This precedent,

1320:

into individual Rcats (when I'm already editing a redirect). I want these tags to be clear and easy to use; I'm sure you want the same. You may be accustomed to having shortcuts like this save you time, but how much more time would it save to have more editors working in this area, and how much

1230:

Since I often prefer the use of shortcuts myself (to save time while categorizing redirects), the only reason to convert to a shortcut might be if another edit(s) is being made to the redirect. IOW, it's at best a "trivial" edit. I do disagree with your statement about the template shortcut

4356:, consensus was found that "diva" is a gendered term and its use offensive. Consequently, all the "diva" variant redirects that point to the essay, which has since been refactored (though not without protest), should also be deleted, as their continued use would undermine the consensus. 871:

But It just happens to be that I am an Englishman with a Hungarian wife and live in Hungary so asked her, then checked the "best" Hungarian dictionary, and it agreed with her. I don't think that what it means in Hungarian should influence our decision on what it should mean in English,

4416:

Way too many incoming links. Deleting these would break the context of those discussions, and frankly make editors using these shortcuts look pretty bad. Moving the essay was fine, but this is just going to make it look like people were slinging "diva" around for no good reason.

3726:

Yes, the target article tells us that, while the subject is designed specifically for MAC, it works on other "guest operating systems". In other words, it is designed for the MAC, but with appropriate hacks can be used on other OS's, probably with varying degrees of efficiency.

3933:

I dunno about that: after all, Redirects for Discussion is the place to discuss redirects. An RM just would seem like makework to me, aand right now would subvert this discussion. If we have consensus that we want both but that the shorter title is better for the article.

6254:

FORRED opens "The guideline for deleting redirects suggests that foreign-language redirects to a topic not related to that language generally should not be kept." You can disagree with that—as I know you do—but to assert that it's "unrelated" is just astonishingly wrong.

3631:

per Si Trew – while there are guest OSs, it looks like this one's mainly for MAC and likely will be the only article written on the subject. It does seem that the article should be at the redirect and vice versa; however, to maintain status quo is acceptable.

924:. "Ringli" could refer to a bunch of different things in different languages, and by retargeting to one item, you're taking preference to one language while leaving out the others. No matter where we put it, someone is going to be disappointed or confused. -- 1235:}} template box, so it is right up front there for any editors who categorize redirects of all kinds, including surname redirects, and who like to use shortcuts to save time. There is no good deletion rationale that persuades us to delete any of these. – 3410:

ses from 2011, having lived at one title for a couple of years and then at the other for a few more, getting well above noise-level activity on both redirects. Exactly the same number of hits, actually: is the stats tool not case sensitive? In any case

3945:

We have certainly had discussions here which resulted in moving an article over a redirect (effectively doing RM's work), and I think it would be fine to do so here if consensus called for it. I don't feel strongly either way: "Parallels Desktop" is

6086:

invoked with this nomination since the bias would only be present if these were true loanwords (which I have not found any references to prove otherwise). Knowledge (XXG) is not a translation service; that task has been designated to the helpful

585:

I'm not sure of the origin about how "ringli" refers to "doughnut". The redirect is not mentioned in the article, and other translations I am finding in other languages for "ringli" include it translating to "eyelid" or "anchovy".

6079: 2254:, "A relisted discussion may be closed once consensus is determined without necessarily waiting a further seven days." So, anyone who sees consensus here and can technically execute the outcome is free to close this whenever.) 6457:. I can't see this (oh I can on edit it, they are both I circumflexes). At small rendering sizes the thing on the top of the character is indistinguishable from a dot a circumflex or for that matter a grave or an ague, so 6069:

As I have already stated in several recent RFD discussions in the past week, since this the English Knowledge (XXG), a term that is not in English redirecting to any subject (English or any other language) can be seen as

3896:

if we switched the two. But I certainly don't want it to be deleted, so a keep is kinda all right by me, I think it just would be better switched around: the "for Mac" is essentially acting as a needless disambiguation.

4048: 2830:, a goddess, is the personification of the rainbow. I think that is what this is a reference to. I wouldn't appose a retarget to the goddess either, or a pure deletion as it isn't mentioned at either, hence the weak. 3707:

Right, but that target is specifically "for Mac", and, according to Geoffrey, Parallels Desktop runs on more than just Macs. I know nothing about the subject, but am assuming that he knows what he's talking about.

6119: 3311:

this kind of redirect assumes that Knowledge (XXG)'s primary destination form search terms only has information on the current news-y portion of their histories. and that their pasts must be in subarticles --

3419:

for this redirect: if a user wants to search for previous seasons this team played, this redirect brings them to that information, and not everything that happened is news. In this case it's specifically

2944:

of potential retargeting options, and I think all of them are helpful to figuring out what "arc of Iris" is. However, I don't think they are as helpful as the status quo because an "arc of Iris" actually

2593:) has consensus. Sing it Frank, you do the high notes and I'll do the low notes and I'll be in Scotland afore ye. Cos he's dead and buried and forever under ground so I cut off this song afore I bore ye. 532:. The discussion below has shown that "ringli" may refer to different things in different cultures, none of which would be independently notable for the English Knowledge (XXG). Delete along the lines of 2940:

because this is a synonym for "rainbow". While it's not explicitly mentioned, there's enough there that it can be deduced. I might look into making that clearer when I have more time. There are a

3827:, there is only one "Parallels Desktop", the full name is "Parallels Desktop for Mac", and it runs on Mac exclusively. There are other software packages that run on other operating systems (e.g. 2404: 5452:

per Tavix. This name is referring to the UPisodes used to promote the movie, rather than being an alternative name for the movie itself (like I said earlier when nominating the redirect).

4515:

used to be titled "Don't feed the divas", but that it has since been renamed and repurposed, and that it no longer advances the viewpoint that some Wikipedians are or act like "divas".

6567: 326:

to this nom, or should I make it separately? Their fate seems rather intertwined (regardless of whether or not you agree with my weak retarget, which may well not be the best option).

39: 34: 3211: 3175: 1896: 6047:, and should be avoided because it makes the encyclopaedia harder to use, discourages potential editors from getting involved, and is likely to be perceived as a ethnocentric/racist 4484:

Right, but the essay no longer presents that viewpoint. This isn't about whether people say "diva" on Knowledge (XXG); it's about disassociating the essay from the use of the word.

2616:(Disclaimer: I converted the less-than-notable article on the cover to this redirect). Personally, I hate this kind of redirect, where one would have to type the whole target name, 4641:

Obviously helpful Knowledge (XXG) namespace shortcuts and phrases with incoming links due to their length of existence ... so, deletion or retargetting makes no sense, in my mind.

4257: 1196:

aren't really shortcuts, and certainly not TLAs, but simply alternative descriptive names or leftovers from mergers. Many redirect acronyms are used little or not at all, e.g.

6043:- plausible search term, no argument has been presented for deletion. Treating readers with hostility and contempt due to them being second language speakers contributes to 4976: 2284:

without saying anything further. The comment was more of an "I wish I would have !voted earlier and save the relist, but I didn't because I thought it was uncontroversial.")

2123:

if these are real locations in the real world, then the edit histories of the merged pages should be displaced to "X (Pokemon)" and the current titles become redlinks. --

2097:, but nowhere in enough detail to mention these specific places. A few of these are redirects from merges, but since it will never be appropriate to have such detail (see 794:

I'm mostly concerned that a reader familiar with (this type of) ringlis won't really be served by retargeting; they probably already know they're a Swiss donut-like food.

4587:

I'm happy to see that there's some precedent. Though the move is under review, it is the new name that's under dispute; the page won't be returning to the "diva" title.

6878:

I do think that article could use a better title. All instances of that aren't "attacks", and the syntax applies something called the IDN is committing the attack. --

3029:

per Rubbish. A deeper search reveals that it's probably just a mistranslation, or if not, it's obscure. I've heard it before, which is why I argued to keep it, but I

2559: 4353: 6860:őszrmz nonsense. (őszrmz is apparently when I type blind to try to hit "patent": I was one letter too far left in most cases, but ő is to the right of P) 3329:- plausible search term, appears to direct readers to the content they're looking for, no rationale has been presented for deletion, nor can I imagine any. 4879: 1366:

Why do you say that? There are 12,356 redirects from surnames, but 15,794 from songs and 18,239 from shortcuts (only 2078 from schools, to my surprise). --

6396: 1193: 1091: 6074:

since it gives readers the false expectation that the non-English term is used in English text to an extent that it has been established as an official

3950:, but "Parallels Desktop for Mac" is the proper title. If we were to discuss moving, I would vote for status quo, or "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". 632:, then. In Hungarian it means ""anchovy rings" i.e. anchovies sliced along their length into coin-like pieces, or just "small ring" (though it is not a 144:

This redirect was formerly an article. It seems per its history that the information in the article was either merged into or planned to be merged into

2763:

Since this term is not mentioned in the target article, I don't think the current target is helpful. However, the best alternate target I can find is

1828: 21: 6668: 6426: 6184: 6012: 5368: 3248:. They can't go out of date in the same way that "Next..." ones can, though. Stats are at noise level, the only use was in article space was in the 2538:

I was surprised too, and had there been I would have added Winehouse's cover. Perhaps it is because it is now such a standard, there are too many.

1561:. This would be a slippery slope to apply precedent to, and would discourage any mass nomination of this sort. From what I could gleam, I don't see 3267:

as this appears to be a redirect which is used and one which cannot go out of date unlike 'Next' ones. This appears to be a plausible search term.

3550: 1565:

more rcats that would fit in this same boat (highly ambiguous, no usage) so I'm not sure how useful it'd be to raise any alarms of this type... --

1428:

ambiguous. It'd be one thing if this was an established shortcut for this, but since it was only used three times, it's not. I also don't see how

5921: 4512: 4323: 4287: 4251: 4215: 4456:

has often been used in the context of accusing someone of being a diva, and will continue to be used in this manner if it remains a blue link.

5192: 1862: 1044: 5527:

since the first part of your rationale is basically an argument for creating that. The second part makes no sense to me. What the heck does

614:

this seems to be the Swiss version of doughnuts. Still delete unless there are refs that says that this variant is unique to Switzerland. --

17: 6661:, but I don't get why, is this a bug or something else, not sure if I should've nominated this here. Apologies for any misunderstanding. - 4329: 4293: 4221: 2066: 121: 416:

per Si Trew, since a merge took place. I don't think this is going to be helpful for readers, though. Somewhat contradictorily, tag with

6504:

I'm getting "Vikipediya" as the Crimean Tatar word for Knowledge (XXG) and Википедия as the (Russian) Tatar word for Knowledge (XXG). --

5741: 4742: 1964: 1930: 1217: 1048: 758: 2219:

per BDD. I thought this was uncontroversial and just awaiting admin action, but if a more clearer consensus is needed I'll chime in. --

6681: 6634: 6027: 5811: 5778: 5215: 4037: 3313: 2644: 2554:

Given the number of search engine results as well as number of references from Google Books, it looks from at least first glance that

2124: 2032: 1998: 1070: 1017: 776: 733: 4534: 4508: 4191: 5016:

More disturbing is that someone can't spell "Channel" when moving it. I shall do so, which will leave the target as a redirect too.

2740: 4885:, rather than a misspelling or incorrect name. It's the same name, just an alternative transliteration from the original Russian. 4060: 5955: 4711: 3008:

Do we have evidence of this phrase being used in English? Could it be a mistranslation from the Spanish or Portuguese phrases? --

1165:

edits to revert if you would like to return to status quo ante while the discussion is going on. But I don't see the benefit of

711:

Yeah, better to the specific section. If we do, we should remember to delink it there else we get a cryptic circular reference.

6856:. I don't think it's a copyright attack, that is putting it rather strongly when the target is Knowledge (XXG), but it is just 4567: 4076: 1099: 863: 5887: 5309: 4786: 4470:

We really can't prevent anyone from calling another editor a diva. Better that there be some context to the comment, then. --

1216:(which is used properly once and has one mislink left over from a different meaning of the same acronym from ten years ago). 5631: 5771: 5666: 430: 3795: 3372: 2983: 2185: 1722: 816: 454: 6665: 6423: 6181: 6009: 5365: 1095: 562: 346:

separately since due to your findings above, the discussion's result will probably be different that this one's result.

6593: 6355: 5846: 5612: 5264: 4935: 4697: 4179: 4007: 3507: 3350:. It's nonsense because it implies that the the current season can't be listed, when it can and should be (although it 3132: 2693: 2357: 2250:

Yeah, I wasn't 100% sure how to interpret the comment in the discussion, so I couldn't see this hurting. That, and per

1885: 1787: 974: 519: 77: 6936: 6680:

the first letter "і" is actually HEX d196 whatever that's supposed to mean, when I checked the string's codepoints --

5740:- As stated above, this is a very relevant search term to the song itself. It could also be a mistaken title as well. 5567: 5393: 4863: 4134: 2840: 2567: 2493: 1706: 2621:

truly is an improbable redirect, whose only purpose would really be search engine seeding, which is not our concern.

2416: 6940: 6917: 6887: 6869: 6844: 6824: 6799: 6769: 6745: 6725: 6707: 6689: 6671: 6615: 6531: 6513: 6495: 6478: 6449: 6429: 6377: 6314: 6293: 6264: 6241: 6224: 6187: 6153: 6131: 6110: 6060: 6035: 6015: 5996: 5868: 5819: 5786: 5749: 5732: 5712: 5645: 5571: 5544: 5512: 5467: 5440: 5419: 5400: 5371: 5352: 5290: 5223: 5206: 5171: 5156: 5122: 5090: 5058: 5025: 5008: 4957: 4894: 4867: 4850: 4836: 4817: 4800: 4774: 4723: 4656: 4633: 4596: 4582: 4546: 4524: 4493: 4479: 4465: 4447: 4426: 4404: 4381: 4201: 4138: 4121: 4100: 4080: 4029: 3962: 3920: 3906: 3884: 3857: 3813: 3776: 3753: 3735: 3717: 3694: 3681: 3663: 3640: 3623: 3600: 3582: 3529: 3466: 3444: 3390: 3363: 3338: 3321: 3296: 3278: 3154: 3089: 3071: 3042: 3017: 3001: 2974: 2920: 2902: 2880: 2847: 2812: 2782: 2719: 2652: 2631: 2602: 2571: 2549: 2529: 2497: 2480: 2463: 2443: 2383: 2316: 2295: 2270: 2228: 2209: 2176: 2150: 2132: 2114: 1809: 1746: 1713: 1679: 1644: 1574: 1548: 1523: 1500: 1402: 1375: 1357: 1330: 1304: 1286: 1243: 1225: 1116: 1078: 1056: 996: 933: 910: 899: 866:– a DAB – which in the cunning new way of WikiData I can't tie up properly because of the enforced 1:1 relationship. 840: 807: 784: 766: 741: 720: 702: 679: 653: 620: 601: 543: 478: 445: 408: 379: 361: 163: 100: 6740: 6444: 6288: 5727: 5414: 5201: 4965: 4831: 4399: 4376: 4095: 4072: 3869: 3618: 3273: 2875: 2458: 2171: 1518: 1397: 1352: 1232: 754: 697: 688: 629: 611: 403: 6658: 1663:, though, I must continue to stand on my strong "keep-this-harmless-shortcut-redirect" !vote (till the bitter end 200:, which was created as an article in January 2003. From an hour after its creation on 26 April 2003 it pointed at 5004: 3842: 3686:

Just FYI, the versions are mentioned in the present, more focused target, as well as a link to Parallels, Inc. –

3544: 3404: 2640: 2371: 1611: 4393:

as it may be harmful to not keep as a soft redirect due to the number of incoming links and the page history. --

2163: 2102: 196:, which also doesn't mention extinction. That one's been a redirect throughout its existence, for most of it to 6892:

But it's not actually a homograph, is it? But on small screen sizes it is. So I guess it is a demihomograph or

6026:

Knowledge (XXG) is not a translation dictionary. General topic with no affinity for any particular language --

5660: 4042: 3245: 3205: 3169: 1446: 659: 420: 5496: 6662: 6420: 6178: 6006: 5745: 5362: 3578: 2093:

redirects. These are locations in Kanto, the setting of the original video games. It's described briefly at

1221: 1173: 1139: 1052: 1011: 762: 675: 753:. If it's either anchovy rings or doughnuts, then it's unhelpful to redirect readers to just one of those. 148:, but the information seems to be absent from the target article'a current version (if it was ever there.) 6932: 6685: 6305:, which is a guideline and a much stronger argument than saying that there isn't a reason for deletion. -- 6048: 6031: 5815: 5782: 5563: 5219: 5138: 5045: 5031: 4970: 4859: 4623: 4443: 4269: 4130: 3457:

it then. Does no harm. I struck my delete as proposer above the watershed, and said so, I hope that's OK.

3317: 2648: 2563: 2489: 2128: 1456: 1271: 1166: 1162: 1159: 1156: 1074: 904:

Not sure man, I think they're too different for "Ringli" to be considered as a plausible misspelling. --

780: 737: 6174: 6088: 6083: 5528: 5500: 5074: 4999:

Article created in the wrong namespace and then moved; there's no need for a redirect from portal space.

3223: 3187: 1817: 6735: 6589: 6439: 6351: 6283: 5842: 5761: 5722: 5608: 5409: 5260: 5196: 4931: 4890: 4826: 4693: 4394: 4371: 4198: 4175: 4090: 4003: 3828: 3613: 3503: 3268: 3128: 2950: 2870: 2689: 2453: 2398: 2353: 2166: 1783: 1513: 1392: 1347: 970: 692: 540: 515: 398: 97: 73: 6092: 5626: 5484: 2937: 2098: 1908: 637: 2094: 6905: 6832: 6820: 6765: 6466: 5100: 5000: 4988: 4791:. I have marked it as such, without prejudice to this discussion (that is just how it is right now). 4578: 3958: 3853: 3770: 3729: 3688: 3634: 3440: 2540: 2525: 2434: 1851: 1673: 1621: 1542: 1436: 1298: 1261: 1237: 1110: 53:

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 11, 2015.

3947: 3893: 3609: 3416: 3308: 3241: 2506: 2055: 1653: 1477: 6913: 6865: 6474: 6220: 6149: 6106: 5992: 5641: 5508: 5152: 5118: 5054: 5021: 4796: 4652: 4117: 3939: 3902: 3596: 3591:. In the absence of articles about Parallels Desktop for other platforms, this is the best target. 3462: 3292: 3257: 3067: 2954: 2916: 2898: 2808: 2778: 2598: 2429: 2266: 2205: 1953: 1919: 1742: 1391:

Unfortunately I guessed that this would be the most likely one. Please cross out my above comment.

895: 836: 716: 649: 597: 474: 375: 357: 331: 227: 159: 6279: 6229: 6208: 6023: 5978: 4563: 3892:, per Paine. On all evidence, we want the article and the redirect, but we would probably be more 3428:

s? I also don't think the redirect implies anything about the content of the article, it would be

2307:

We do not have relevant information on Knowledge (XXG). Therefore these redirects are misleading.

2281: 2251: 2021: 1987: 1601: 1591: 1102:}}, are commonly abbreviated this way. And not for anything, but shouldn't we wait for decisions 1043:

opaque shortcut used on only three redirects (before I orphaned it); ambiguous with all the other

850:. As for the Hungarian, it is not that these are common in Hungary: and the word is essentially a 772: 5462: 5347: 4770: 4715: 4588: 4516: 4485: 4457: 4357: 3912: 3876: 3745: 3574: 3076:"Arcoíris" is fairly common in Spanish since it's the word for "rainbow" so I've heard it before 2312: 1581: 671: 274: 5944: 5039: 4559: 1587:

if one could reasonably expect it to refer to something else. For example, I wouldn't object to

1558: 6623: 6408: 6385: 4808:- plausible search term, for instance, for someone who's heard the name but not seen it spelt. 3055: 2866:-- Rainbow very briefly mentioned but not by this name. Paragraph 4 of that section, 4th line: 6795: 6491: 6232:

doesn't provide any rationale for deleting any of these redirects. It's an unrelated essay.

6127: 5910: 5876: 5524: 5480: 5298: 4607: 4439: 1805: 992: 883: 6588:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

6350:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

6044: 5841:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

5607:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

5503:

by the way, I guess the ad shorts were only released in North America? But I love that film.

5259:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

4930:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

4692:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

4453: 4210: 4174:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

4002:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

3502:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

3127:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

2908: 2688:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

2352:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

1782:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

1411: 969:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

514:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

72:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

4886: 4719: 4592: 4520: 4489: 4461: 4361: 4195: 3916: 3880: 3758: 3749: 3249: 3026: 2958: 2863: 2827: 2792: 2764: 2707: 2509:, although I doubt Winehouse's rendition is notable. I am a bit surprised that there aren't 1149: 551: 537: 94: 6857: 6462: 6458: 5476: 4109: 3429: 3347: 2868:

She is also said to travel on the rainbow while carrying messages from the gods to mortals.

6813: 6758: 6236: 6055: 4812: 4606:

is a smart idea and has precedence as Ivan pointed out. Seems like a good compromise too.

4571: 3951: 3846: 3651: 3433: 3333: 2518: 5933: 5078: 1840: 1632: 921: 750: 533: 3824: 1660: 6909: 6861: 6470: 6216: 6162: 6145: 6141: 6096: 5982: 5637: 5559: 5532: 5504: 5449: 5428: 5380: 5303: 5278: 5142: 5114: 5050: 5017: 4792: 4642: 4113: 3935: 3898: 3592: 3458: 3288: 3253: 3063: 2912: 2894: 2804: 2768: 2629: 2594: 2476: 2256: 2195: 1732: 891: 826: 712: 645: 587: 464: 371: 347: 337: 327: 315: 291: 270: 221: 201: 197: 149: 6302: 6207:. WilyD, a good reason and argument was presented for deletion at the first instance: 5379:- it seems Disney/Pixar released short promotional clips called "UPisodes" to promote 4435: 6883: 6840: 6720: 6611: 6526: 6373: 6260: 5864: 5453: 5338: 5286: 5167: 5086: 4953: 4845: 4767: 4736: 4731: 4542: 4475: 4422: 4025: 3809: 3562: 3525: 3386: 3150: 3013: 2997: 2715: 2555: 2514: 2379: 2308: 2146: 2110: 1640: 1371: 1326: 1314: 1282: 905: 887: 803: 615: 441: 93:

to preserve attribution, despite the redirect itself not being particularly helpful.

3058:, which would sound the same in my bad English. Apparently there isn't. (We do have 2889:

I think it better to target the lede, which says she "is the personification of the

6901: 6791: 6754: 6487: 6169: 6123: 3740:

I think you might be confused. Guest operating systems are the systems you can run

1874: 1801: 1418: 1210: 1200: 1183: 1129: 988: 254: 6787: 6628: 6390: 4341: 4305: 4233: 3911:"Parallels Desktop" might be the common name, but that's best discussed in an RM. 3865:

per Ivanvector - no evidence that other operating system versions exist. Tag with

2432:

sang the song on the show, but was erroneously attributing the song to Winehouse.

2078: 133: 4858:- I think this is a pretty open-and-shut case that will probably be closed soon. 4754: 2752: 1976: 1942: 1432:

the rcat shortcut is in the first place, because someone could easily assume its

6893: 6646: 4628: 2044: 2010: 1029: 663: 5431:. There's an entire section at the article dedicated to these. C'mon guys... -- 1414:

tagging, so I know where Paine is coming from. I also can see the problem that

6897: 6699: 6505: 6306: 6233: 6052: 5536: 5432: 5386: 5162:

Yes. See, it's so implausible I couldn't even remember it moments later! :P --

4809: 3709: 3673: 3655: 3355: 3330: 3081: 3034: 2966: 2949:

a rainbow, and not Iris herself, a band, or a rainbow sub-article. I've found

2833: 2796: 2287: 2245: 2220: 2060: 2026: 1992: 1958: 1924: 1890: 1856: 1822: 1699: 1566: 1492: 925: 755:

Bad things happen when you mislead people about the meaning of Hungarian words

667: 633: 177: 6122:, Steel1943. Are you saying you think the Turks have no concept of liberty?? 4194:

into soft redirect and tag as historical, then point the other titles to it.

859: 5967: 3059: 2622: 2472: 394: 301: 284: 250: 213: 193: 173: 89: 5678: 6582:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

6344:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

5899: 5835:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

5601:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

5321: 5253:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

4924:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

4686:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

4168:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

3996:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

3835:-based systems) but they are not called "Desktop". So it seems to me that 3496:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

3121:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

2682:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

2346:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

1776:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

963:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

508:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

66:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

6879: 6836: 6607: 6369: 6256: 6075: 5860: 5701: 5282: 5163: 5132: 5082: 4949: 4538: 4471: 4418: 4021: 3805: 3521: 3382: 3146: 3009: 2993: 2823: 2800: 2711: 2375: 2237: 2142: 2106: 1649:

I understand, and I shall probably use Tavix' good suggestion and create

1636: 1386: 1367: 1322: 1278: 851: 799: 641: 556: 437: 6698:

My search came up as "CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER BYELORUSSIAN-UKRAINIAN I" --

5721:

as appears to be a plausible search term most relevant to its target. --

574: 5949: 5915: 5881: 5492: 5488: 3354:

appear to be out of date, that has nothing to do with the redirect). --

2962: 2890: 2734: 2590: 1277:

are two extremely common Rcats, with plenty of other potential uses. --

6954: