Knowledge:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 16

5335:'s term) that we pack in meanings that we want and take out meanings that we don't want, all depending solely on the context. Even within a particular culture, what's seen as "explicit" sexual material will vary widely. This is particularly notable when it comes to, say, cultural attitudes on breastfeeding and toplessness. An R-rated American film that's not seen as pornography at all, just an uncensored drama about life, might feature breastfeeding women in a non-sexual context in the background while later topless women are treated sexually in a quick moment... what happens with exportation? European audiences might laugh at the high rating in the U.S. and consider it all massively 'tame' while certain Mideast audiences might try to ban the film altogether. It all depends. God knows that any media involving either bisexuality, homosexuality, transgender people, prostitution, or other political minefields get labeled all sorts of things. 5903:

possible. Together with the list they were forced to publish the transcripts from those CSRT hearings. While they published the transcripts of 400 hearings in six dozen or so big PDF files, they scrambled them, and did not provide an index. PDFs that are images of documents, and are thus not machine-readable, machine-searchable, are harder to deal with, all around, than the PDFs that re machine readable, machine searchable. They take up orders of magnitude more space. Nevertheless, this is how the DoD released the documents. You can read the version on the NYTimes because they spent an enormous number of person-hours optically scanning those images. That kind of scanning takes a huge amount of time when the image is fly-specked, as these were. So, the funny look of this name is probably part of that obfuscation.

2615:

defiance of our rules against offsite links to other websites in lists -- but that's since been trimmed back to a mere unlinked mention of its name, which itself isn't even warranted as the publication is not a notable one. What these have actually been used for to date, further, is to render mentions of its name in album and musician articles into bluelinks leading to the list entry -- but because it's been deadvertorialized, the list entry fails to provide any new information to warrant the website's name being bluelinked in that context, and because it's a non-notable website whose critical commentary does

5516:– There is no semantic equivalence to "pornography" in either term as already pointed out, so I am strongly opposed to that target (it would amount amount to rather single-tracked-mind editorialization). Nor is there any equivalence to the suggested 'sexual content', which makes the mistake of necessarily associating it with media. "Explicit sex" might be a synonym for "overt sex" or "unsubtle sex", as opposed to say some erotic acts or 3339:. The others were renamed in that vein (by the same user who created this one yesterday) as they were rebrandings of existing services, and those names lasted all of a day or two. We settled on a naming convention that matches how the transit agency refers to them weeks ago, so a late creation in the now-unused style is not necessary, and—unsurprisingly—nothing links to it or is ever likely to link to it. — 5686: 5667: 5844: 5327:- I'm maybe going against majority opinion here. At the same time, I've got to really object for three reasons. First, explicitness doesn't equate to being only meant as titillation. Second, explicitness is too unclear of a concept here anyways. Third, explicitness is something that exists in reference to all life experience and not just that depicted in media. 1525:

in popularity) have that as their name and are used in a sentence like "I am going to Big Island". In that case there could be a legitimate argument that even if Hawai'i isn't primary for Big Island, it is primary for The Big Island. But I haven't done enough research into the various entries to form a conclusive opinion. --

4553:". It was then converted by someone else to a redirect, as it remains. French tickler is actually a type of condom with an entry at Wiktionary. But, I don't see any need to move this page back and create a soft redirect to Wiktionary. Rather, it's all useless and can be deleted in my opinion. Nothing links there. 3611:– it's in the article namespace so has the potential to appear in search results, and it doesn't function as a standard template shortcut because it won't work if transcluded. There's a small number of similar redirects lying around, and some of them are kept because they're used for linking to the template. 5848: 5896:

only produces 35 hits. That doesn't mean that those newspapers that archived the articles where they republished those list don't still include this name. It just means google search algorithms no longer shows them. People still read them. Plus those 35 hits include more recent official documents

5345:

As for the third point, the vast majority of life, ubiquitous smartphones in some cultures aside, in the world is not recorded. "Explicit" events, however we define that first term, are happening all of the time, and all over the world, at any particular moment. This is all outside of the experience

4223:

here, especially the "worst" part, which is ambiguous and depends on people's viewpoints (for that matter, I can't seem to find the word "worst" anywhere in the article), as they could be searching for just about any school massacre. Not sure what do to with this redirect...unless someone can find a

3381:

Those redirects only exist because you moved those pages to that naming convention prematurely without checking with anyone and gaining a consensus. The consensus is now established, we're not using the format "Rn RapidBus", and the redirects are no longer needed. But it is especially unnecessary to

4861:

was also suggested, and has had fewer outright objections - generally due to the fact that it's a very short and vague article in itself, but specifically covers the media aspect rather than the specifics of the act itself. A significant number of other users, however, suggest that there just isn't

2824:

seven are the network theory meaning and only three are are the polynomial meaning (and all three of those are different editions of the same work). A general google search reveals that at least over 60% of results are the network theory meaning (may be more, a search term that reliably finds them

1524:

Actually, it wouldn't be unreasonable for both "Big Island" and "The Big Island" to have the Big Island of Hawaii as primary topic, as the others don't seem that important. The one possibility for a legitimate reason for divergent primary topics is if some of the critical Big Islands (say #2 and #3

4386:

false or unverifiable but! it does show an editorial/POV/puffery-bias. Should that asserted fact be in the article?...In my opinion no - the article is about the event, not the school massacres that took place afterwards, not about the sick individuals who have known about the Bath School disaster

2900:

If the primary topic should be the one of computer scientists (for a mathematical concept), one should either have a dab page or do several moves of redirects. In both cases the result would be confusing for mathematicians, and we would have the strange situation that the mathematical terminology

2614:

Redirects from the title of a minor, non-notable music website to a general list of media outlets in the city where that magazine happens to be located. This results from the website's own staff previously attempting on multiple occasions to offlink its entry in that list to their own website, in

5341:

is/was sedate enough for me to watch it with my parents, but to another person in another cultural context it can plausibly be labeled as "explicitly pro-gay pornography". I'll disagree, but the nature of such "suitcase words" means that I can't conclusively prove or disprove anything. Again, it

683:

anything in terms of those views). It can mean implementation of bigotry and discrimination in terms of speech. It can mean a lot of things. While this is a radioactive topic, yes, the answer appears clear to me: deletion. Broadly speaking, I'm not seeing a lot of redirects that simply begin as

5902:

Yes, this name looks funny. There is a reason for this. Those at the DoD who had first denied the FOIA request. those who fought against the FOIA request in court, and those who were delegated to comply with the FOIA request, decided to obfuscate the information, to make it as hard to use as

5330:

It's absolutely common for media that in no way, shape, or form is intended to be seen as pornography to feature sexually frank content that gets labeled as "explicit" due to the lack of censorship. Let's be honest here. 'Explicit' is, ironically, one of those vague "suitcase words" (to use

3918:, especially since this shortcut has literally never been used in this way before (it was originally designed as an informational shortcut intended to be linked, not a template shortcut intended to be transcluded). Uanfala is also correct that this redirect is now ambiguous because of 192:- This appears to be reasonable enough in reference to three different entities (the historical self-governing state with some administrative controls on it, the related but distinct colony with different governance, and the current state as under a distinct status since the 1960s). 3615:

doesn't appear to be used much (only for links, all on user talk pages). It's also ambiguous: the current target makes sense, but then so does the previous one (which the template had for the two years of its existence before 2011) – that was a template subsequently merged into

5893: 679:- As far as I can see, the term "anti-white" has a variety of meanings and none are more notable or prominent than any other. It can be actual physical attacks against white individuals. It can mean the holding of negative stereotypes against them (while not actually 1507:

Yes, I understand that this is the usage in Hawaiʻi, but I imagine that the same distinction may hold for the other Big Islands. It's not obvious to me that the two titles should have different primary topics; both could easily point to a DAB or Hawaiʻi. —

3922:, and previous links intended for the old documentation page are now confusingly leading to the hatnote template. Since there are no transclusions currently, I doubt there is any compelling need to keep this template on a "grandfathered" basis. 5457:

I don't think these are equivalent at all. A non-pornographic film which includes a sex scene between two actors who aren't really having sex is sexually explicit but would not usually be considered pornography and isn't unsimulated sex.

5797:, which makes this name a plausible search term (and by extension the last of these names in front, which we have), but I'm not sure someone would search it this way (may be why it has few pageviews compared to its target). Regards, 5342:

depends. What is "explicit"? And how "explicit" is the nature of an event until something goes from non-pornographic to pornographic (assuming that we're not even getting into the can of worms that is defining "pornographic" either)?

2857:(that is, it has no term of odd degree). This usage is standard for several centuries. Presently, this is this meaning that is the target of the redirect. The same term is also used in computer science for refering to another 5891:

I am not exagerrating when I say that the list was republished literally thousands of times. I know it was thousands because, in 2006, google produced a list of thousands of newspapers when you searched for the list.

2931:

It does suggest, however, that the first page of Google Books results is probably skewed towards the network theory usage since network theory is (relatively) a much newer subject. and may not be a good indicator of

3475:- This appears to be a great case of 'redirect from technically incorrect name' or whatever precisely it's called. Deletion seems to be the wrong call. It's not a silly or useless redirect like we often see here. 1018: 5770: 4866:

a target that a consensus can be found for. All of the targets have specific, definable problems with them, and hence it seems like the rough consensus here is that deleting both is the least-worst option. ~

622: 4862:

an appropriate target for these, and that we would be better off deleting them. Given a hearty lack of consensus for any of the retargetings, we must ultimately come to the conclusion that there just

1619:

My point is that the two titles should probably have the same primary topic, whether it’s the big island of Hawaii or none at all. I see some other “The Big Island”s, such as a climbing spot in

978: 4072:- As far as I can tell, this relates to the fact that the TV channel is perceived as having a right-wing tint in its politics. That doesn't make the redirect appropriate. We don't have ' 3661:

There is nothing above that justifies changing or deleting this "grandfathered in" shortcut. Even "it won't work if transcluded" is untrue. All that is needed is a leading colon, as in

3902:. If this documentation page still existed, then having it as the redirect target makes more sense to me, since it's a convenient shortcut to information. However, the new target of 5548:

I think we'll need to ask !voters for their second choice to try to come up with something that most can accept, or we'll end up with a status quo that no one is really happy with.

2980:

I see 7,210 results from the former and 3,320 results from the latter. That only amounts to 46% of the results coming from network theory.This method is also quite imperfect, since

607: 5524:", anyway, not a noun. Both "explicit sex" and "sexually explicit" belong in a dictionary, not on WP. There does not seem to be a suitable target, anyway. Hence, delete both. — 4378:...was the Bath School disaster the worst school massacre in United States history? So far as I know, yes, it was, in terms of the death toll it remains the sad winner in the US ( 1693:, not WP:THE. WP:THE refers to article titles, not redirects. We often have redirects from misspellings & variations on names that never would be valid as an article title. 5693: 5674: 603: 39: 34: 1554:. I am aware that this may be a regional colloquialism, but I do not believe it is used as such elsewhere. Does anyone else know of another island with this specific moniker? 4857:

has several supporters with rational arguments, and several opposers, also with perfectly reasonable arguments. There is definitely not a consensus for redirecting it there.

4019: 3665:(this does not work at present because the shortcut has been disabled temporarily). To illustrate the use of a leading colon to transclude non-template shortcuts we can use 5764: 595: 5882:, to get those names published. On April 20th, 2006, the DoD finally complied with a court order, and published a list of the names of 558 individuals who underwent a 3051:. That "biquadratic function" refers to a certain class of quartic functions is well-established, having been the standard meaning of the term since at least 1637 in 4549:- For a time in 2005 to 2006 this was a short unsourced article called "French tickler". Then a vandal moved it to "Freedom tickler", evidently as a joke to match " 3063: 5125:

for extreme examples, although arguably any film rated R, 18+, NC-17 or an equivalent for sexual content has explicit sexual content that is not pornography) .

3403:- But I think that users who do not know of the naming covention and is searching for the article using "R2 RapidBus" will benifit from the redirect page. — 4309: 316: 4196: 3911: 3743: 3608: 938: 5052:

Not a bad thought. That's not the greatest of articles though, so I'm going to think a bit more before supporting or opposing that. We'll need to add the

2793: 715: 357:- This is such an obvious typo that it's reasonable to expect people to notice it immediately and then self-correct. I'm inclined to support deletion. 4329:- The label of a moral event as "worst" involves a ton of questionable implications of which good people can disagree. I'm with the above arguments. 170:. However, i am not sure the article which about the history of the city-state's Self-governance is the primary topic or not. Or something else like 3748:

There is consensus that all such redirects should (as a general rule) point to a designated namespace (eg "T:" to "Template:" or "T:" to "Talk:",...

143: 4387:

and have tried to be The Worst(which could have been the case with some of the more-recent school massacres and that is all I'll say about that).

2623:. Accordingly it doesn't actually merit being named in the list in the first place, let alone having redirects to the list in place from its name. 4948: 2989: 2961: 4587: 3687:

and can be used without the leading colon on talk pages and also with the leading colon to transclude the strikethrough template. Same goes for

4367: 4347: 2549: 21: 5443:

Pornography is a terrible redirect, Sexual content would be a much better target. I think the best target for Explicit sex is less clear. --

4508: 1752:

to state per nom. I have not seen a preponderance of articles that make the punctuation a big deal to distinguish the state from the island.

599: 210: 5946: 5609: 3620:, which has precisely the type of content that people might expect such a shortcut to lead to. Pinging editors who've edited the template: 2591: 2434: 1675: 1539: 1335: 1299: 110: 2619:

count as NMUSIC-assisting coverage for musicians or albums, use of it as a source in music-related articles really shouldn't be happening

1012: 5794: 1630: 1624: 4908: 4687: 2413: 17: 3058:

and is in use today by thousands of mathematics research papers. This meaning is documented in standard tertiary references like the

5857: 3258: 1001: 588:

Convoluted page history, unclear what the best target would be. Page was originally an encyclopedia article of sorts, then moved to

452: 839:'. Not that this proves any point, but I'm going to state once again that broadly speaking we don't really have 'anti-' redirects. 174:(which started in 1946 until 1963 per infobox, but "State of Singapore Act" was actually ratified in 1950s) is the primary topic? 5883: 4308:

This can't really be applied to any one incident over another, and there doesn't seem to be a list that encompasses this topic -

1247: 1006: 590: 565: 409:, but I don't quite know how plausible this one is...also, I can see someone mistakenly capitalizing the W in "writer." Regards, 972: 3899: 3314: 2957: 2680: 1767: 391: 5091:. Do not know if that is true, but if it is, then that is a good example that unsimulated does not by default mean explicit. 4351: 4102: 1203: 5837:, but apparently without first performing a web search, to see if it was in use online. Note the second entry in this list. 2352: 2308: 2264: 2220: 2176: 2132: 2088: 2044: 2000: 1956: 1912: 961: 3067: 2375:

Deletion as unicode characters that don't register properly on quite a few devices which will most likely cause confusion

5865:

For the first four years it was open the US military followed the tradition of repressive regimes everywhere, and simply

5354:' given that the vast majority of people who have died a violent death haven't had that involved with any sort of media. 5869:

the captives it held in Guantanamo. They kept their names secret. Most of their families did not know they were alive.

5849:

List of Individuals Detained by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba from January 2002 through May 15, 2006

4073: 4013: 167: 131: 5824: 5638: 5359: 4737: 4574: 4334: 4081: 3584: 3480: 2650: 1786: 1089: 844: 822: 749: 705: 362: 344: 197: 3725:

If the template is to be kept per the grandfather clause, then it would need to be retargeted back to the content at

2865:

whose numerator and denominator are of degree two. For taking this usage into account, I have created two redirects,

2821: 1305: 1176: 1041:

Not sure these redirects are needed anymore, since their respective pages are already several years old (over 10 for

645:

a loaded, POV term that isn't used to meaningfully refer to any topic on Knowledge, that I think it might be best to

5056:

redirect to this nomination if we want to change that target. I'll do that in the morning if nobody beats me to it.

2412:

for those who can see it, as their meanings are unambiguous. Else retarget to their respective Unicode blocks, e.g.

5969: 5952: 5922: 5828: 5810: 5743: 5642: 5615: 5537: 5528: 5506: 5477: 5468: 5437: 5421: 5398: 5389: 5363: 5319: 5285: 5244: 5232: 5213: 5190: 5161: 5136: 5118: 5100: 5065: 5040: 5016: 4986: 4883: 4797: 4780: 4757: 4741: 4719: 4662: 4599: 4578: 4561: 4540: 4483: 4420: 4396: 4358: 4338: 4321: 4300: 4283: 4259: 4241: 4171: 4108: 4085: 4063: 4002: 3994: 3931: 3889: 3863: 3835: 3805: 3768: 3733: 3719: 3652: 3559: 3498: 3484: 3467: 3443: 3425: 3412: 3395: 3376: 3348: 3320: 3290: 3231: 3168: 3145: 3127: 3118: 3101: 3023: 3003: 2975: 2951: 2926: 2910: 2836: 2766: 2703: 2686: 2654: 2632: 2524: 2461: 2440: 2402: 2384: 1885: 1824: 1807: 1790: 1773: 1744: 1702: 1681: 1646: 1614: 1600: 1563: 1545: 1519: 1502: 1446: 1411: 1372: 1341: 1110: 1093: 1076: 1058: 913: 848: 826: 804: 776: 768: 753: 731: 709: 670: 658: 540: 473: 456: 439: 422: 397: 366: 348: 291: 228: 201: 183: 116: 93: 5886:, and, on May 15th, 2006, they published 778 names, claiming it included everyone who had been held at Guantanamo. 5428:

I still think pornography is the best target, but could live with sexual content. I'm firmly opposed to deletion.

817:' either. I'd support deleting that redirect if it came up for a discussion, using just about the same reasoning. 5719: 5374:, would consider deletion an acceptable second choice, and remain firmly opposed to targeting these redirects to 4836: 4638: 4459: 4147: 4097: 3970: 3860: 3832: 3765: 3716: 3537: 3207: 2787: 2742: 2500: 1863: 1149: 889: 512: 310: 267: 79: 4190: 2895:. If the old meaning is considered as the primary topic (this is my opinion), this is probably the best solution 932: 637:

with no discussion. However, that article makes clear that it's a faulty label (for a faulty concept). Normally

5941: 5604: 5209: 3164: 2429: 1670: 1633: 1534: 1330: 1294: 105: 5520:, and might be related to an event rather than a depiction. "Sexually explicit" is an adjective phrase like " 3059: 5965: 5448: 5301: 5186: 5096: 4942: 4793: 3898:– It looks like I used this redirect once, almost eight years ago, back when the target of the redirect was 3879: 2970: 2921: 2831: 2699: 1803: 1596: 435: 299: 137: 5223:'I came here for the "sexually explicit" redirect.' You may be on the wrong site for your *ahem* purposes? 4179: 2543: 921: 5820: 5634: 5571: 5355: 5088: 4733: 4570: 4502: 4330: 4077: 3681: 3476: 3048: 2933: 2663: 2646: 1782: 1358: 1085: 840: 818: 745: 701: 358: 340: 193: 5351: 5267:

after my original close. Thus, I've reopened it since I no longer see consensus, and here it is relisted.

5117:

materials are an example of sexually explicit material that is not pornographic, as are many films (e.g.

2585: 5715: 5228: 4832: 4776: 4634: 4595: 4455: 4255: 4143: 3966: 3533: 3391: 3344: 3286: 3203: 2738: 2496: 2296: 1859: 1820: 1275: 1145: 1106: 1072: 966: 885: 666: 508: 469: 263: 75: 5860:

are just as valid today, as when I made them three years ago. They agreed, and restored the redirects.

5347: 5147: 5053: 5000: 4931: 4902: 4681: 4382:

that's just the US) and this is an online encyclopedia with a world-wide scope, so the redirect isn't

3079: 2532: 1816: 448: 4491: 4392: 4184: 3885: 3848: 3820: 3778: 3753: 3704: 3625: 3356: 559: 179: 5856:

Someone called for the deletion of this redirect in January 2017. I think the points I made on the

3845:

All such shortcuts are inherently ambiguous, so that is no reason to alter or delete this shortcut.

3075: 3012:

of duplicate hits on the network theory results, from mirrored hostings of the same papers/books. —

2816:

I tried to turn this into a dab page with one polynomial meaning and one network theory meaning per

2574: 55:

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 16, 2020.

5936: 5933: 5599: 5596: 5555: 5517: 5502: 5433: 5281: 5205: 5061: 5012: 4767: 4296: 3308: 3160: 3090:. I have yet to see a single general tertiary reference that uses the network theory definition. — 2817: 2674: 2417: 1761: 1665: 1662: 1529: 1526: 1318: 1289: 1286: 700:' all don't exist, for instance (picking those particular people right off of the top of my head). 685: 385: 171: 100: 97: 4891: 4670: 1657:. Very few geographic entries treat "The" as an inseparable part of the name; an example would be 1627: 693: 5961: 5918: 5804: 5551: 5444: 5182: 5092: 4789: 4715: 4536: 4317: 4235: 3875: 3494: 3408: 3372: 3156: 3114: 2992:, and you wouldn't want to claim that more than 100% of those results are from network theory! — 2965: 2916: 2906: 2826: 2695: 2457: 2398: 2393:

all the above redirects were created by the same user who is now blocked under a checkuserblock.

2380: 1799: 1698: 1610: 1592: 1559: 1498: 1407: 1052: 798: 638: 431: 416: 3578: 2938:

A general google search reveals that at least over 60% of results are the network theory meaning

836: 814: 548: 5758: 5525: 5122: 3730: 3726: 3649: 3641: 3617: 3453:

per Eric; it doesn't matter if it's a correct name; it matters if it is a plausible redirect.

2885: 2878: 2862: 2628: 1042: 926: 727: 214: 5714:

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

4831:

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

4633:

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

4454:

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

4142:

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

3965:

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

3532:

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

3202:

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

2981: 2737:

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

2495:

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

1858:

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

1144:

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

884:

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

507:

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

262:

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

74:

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

5875: 5337: 5314: 5224: 5114: 4772: 4591: 4371: 4251: 4060: 3903: 3800: 3695: 3572: 3387: 3340: 3282: 3252: 3052: 3044: 2892: 2850: 2781: 2579: 2537: 2449: 1727: 1102: 1068: 662: 465: 5370:

Clarifying my stance in light of CoffeeWithMarkets's contribution, I prefer retargeting to

5300:

It might not be the only plausible meaning for either term, but is highly likely to be the

3789: 3688: 3612: 3567: 5178: 4896: 4850: 4751: 4555: 4388: 4355: 3326: 2825:

all is difficult), so if anything is primary, that is, but I would settle for a dab page.

2820:. This was reverted on the grounds that the network theory meaning is "unusual". In the 1580: 1428: 1399: 1191: 175: 3817:

For some reason, that didn't work for me when I tried it. I must've done it incorrectly.

3674: 3670: 3071: 1241: 5626: 5589: 5565: 5492: 5429: 5371: 5271: 5084: 5057: 5026: 5008: 4858: 4292: 4277: 3644:

12:09, 16 April 2020 (UTC) – I've just realised that the ambiguity is even worse, as

3458: 3300: 2666: 1753: 1735: 1686: 1435:? Seems almost the same as this case, with “the” somehow changing the primary topic. — 1424: 1395: 689: 553: 377: 5793:

Vohidov's JDMIC/NDRC reference name was Sobit Abdumukit Valikhonovich Vakhidov on his

4291:

There's no reason that that term would be assumed to apply to that specific massacre.

2915:

How long the term has been in use is not the deciding factor for determining primacy.

5914: 5798: 5736: 5382: 5332: 5264: 5154: 5129: 5047: 5033: 4979: 4711: 4655: 4550: 4532: 4476: 4417: 4313: 4229: 4220: 4164: 3987: 3927: 3907: 3490: 3439: 3404: 3368: 3299:

the other ones were created as Rx RapidBus, redirecting to their appropriate routes.

3224: 3141: 3110: 2902: 2854: 2759: 2517: 2453: 2394: 2376: 1694: 1654: 1620: 1606: 1574: 1555: 1494: 1418: 1403: 1197: 1169: 1046: 906: 792: 533: 410: 284: 2346: 2302: 2258: 2214: 2170: 2126: 2082: 2038: 1994: 1950: 1906: 5579: 5575: 5461: 3919: 3645: 3246: 3092: 3014: 2994: 2942: 2624: 1637: 1510: 1461: 1437: 1363: 723: 304: 219: 5782: 4960: 4920: 4699: 4520: 4208: 4031: 3596: 3270: 2805: 2603: 2561: 2452:

so even though quite a few users may not be able to see them, they may have uses.

2364: 2320: 2276: 2232: 2188: 2144: 2100: 2056: 2012: 1968: 1924: 1390: 1259: 1215: 1030: 990: 950: 744:

As an adjective it still appears problematic to the point of being useless to me.

577: 328: 155: 626: 5630: 5585: 5564:

If you had to choose, would you rather delete the redirects or retarget them to

5559: 5375: 5305: 5295: 5258: 5174: 5110: 5080: 4996: 4936: 4854: 4270:. Ambiguous, and adds value judgements that we should avoid as an encyclopedia. 4043: 3811: 3797: 3637: 3621: 3383: 3364: 3360: 3087: 3083: 784: 813:

For what it's worth, I don't think that it's clear if we have consensus about '

5843: 5413: 4868: 4729: 3750:

so it goes against consensus to target a "non-T" page like Knowledge:Hatnote.

3551: 2641:- As stated above, the publication doesn't appear to be particularly notable. 1877: 1478: 1432: 1385: 1354: 1314: 832: 780: 772: 697: 627: 526: 217:

also points to a disambiguation page, it makes sense for this one to do so. —

5087:. If I am correct, there was at least one unsimulated scene at some point in 4788:. Enwiki does not need rediects for every slang term (if that's what it is). 5025:

I can get on board with pointing them at the same target, but would suggest

4271: 1900: 1658: 5292:

I came here for the "Explicit sex", and all I got was this lousy redirect.

4350:, which should provide answers for anyone searching for this. There's also 1271: 5708:

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

4825:

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

4627:

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

4448:

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

4136:

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

3959:

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

3526:

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

3196:

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

2731:

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

2645:

appears somewhat well-known, I suppose, in its local area, but that's it.

2489:

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

1852:

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

1138:

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

878:

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

501:

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

256:

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

68:

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

5819:- With the parenthesis, this seems baffling. Deletion is the right call. 4405: 4007: 3923: 3633: 3629: 3435: 3137: 2340: 4728:- Seems like nonsense to me. Honestly, all that it made me think of was 5004: 4224:

reliable source showing that this particular school massacre is indeed

2164: 5981: