Knowledge:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 31

4811:, which alone is fairly damning. Taken as a misspelling of "javaccino", I just don't get it. "Java" as a nickname for coffee is well known, and very unlikely to be rendered "Gava". If you're getting the G from Greece, gravaccino is more likely; if you take it as Italian, giavaccino (for what it's worth, none of these forms show up anywhere on the Italian Knowledge). Finally, and perhaps most concerning, current use on Knowledge suggests this is something else entirely: it's linked from 4127:...Hmm, just noticed and clicked the external link in your comment. I wonder why in the heck my search results returned zero entries when the external link you provided returns results for "Gavaccino". Well ... yep, that's some sort of reference right there. I'm still advocating for deletion as the most helpful option since 1) the redirect is not mentioned in the target article, and there doesn't seem to be an appropriate place to mention it and 2) 6412: 6029: 6010: 977: 5490: 4070:, so I could create a redirect at that title, assuming that I did not consider any of Knowledge's policies stating for me not to do that. In that instance, I created that redirect from original research. (Seriously, the whole argument that stuff articles can be construed as original research and nothing else can be ... heard it many times. That argument is like 3444: 3372:, presumably due to a lack of both editor involvement and patrolling administrators. In short, English Knowledge gets the lion's share of the Wikimedia network of web properties' page views, editor volunteerism, and so forth, and, in turn, it should do its part to try and encourage participation elsewhere. -- 5382:. I agree with Steel1943 and Shhhnotsoloud: There may be potential for an article of this name, but not a proper disambiguation. Neither "house" nor "vernacular architecture" are called "domestic architecture". And as Andy Dingley suggests, deleting this might encourage someone to create a relevant article. 4466:

his experience very much, so it concerns me greatly to know that he is upset with me. I would like to make this right, so that's why I'm thinking, at the end of the day, most of our argument was over a misunderstanding in what the other guy meant and to one of us not being able to see any search results.

7133:

associated with the WikiProject. There are probably hundreds more beyond that. Since the recent slew of Middle-earth mergers, many if not most of the redirects are to minor elements not discussed at their targets. Involved editors are trying their best to boldly retarget when possible, and to bundle

5871:

For those just joining this discussion, reviewing the pageview statistics for the pre-nomination 12 month period, you get ~18-20 total pageviews for the preceding year (January 24, 2019—January 23, 2020, inclusive). Most months there are zero pageviews; in other months there is a 'spurt' of activity

5751:

How likely is it that a reader is going to search for a parenthetical qualifier at all? I've seen more than one case where, to invent the circumstances, the Joe Bloggs who had a possibly-notable college football career but wasn't mentioned as such on the DAB page turned out to be better known as Joe

4465:

and I above, but in the grand scheme of the discussion, I don't think it's essential to this redirect's discussion, particularly I've since changed my !vote. I would be fine if he would like to remove all or most of my preceding comments and his as well, and just start fresh. I respect Steel1943 and

354:

and proactive attempt to appear as the "page creator" for the (likely) planned future installments of the gaming franchise. I don't think it's bizarre at all; the fact that we just had another editor, in a good faith attempt, to future plan the list articles for films by year to 2062 indicates this.

3970:

tags you are proposing? I mean, with the rationale above, I could create any nonsense word or phrase as a redirect, mention it on some widely-viewed social media site, that would generate pageviews for the redirect on Knowledge, and thus would result in a similar opinion that the redirect should be

1857:

is a disambiguation page, so it seems improper to assume that readers searching for "history of PSG" are looking for the football club. However, we can't just retarget to the disambiguation page, because the "History of" articles don't belong there. Thus, I think that deletion is the best option at

782:

It's not assuming bad faith to point out when someone is wrong. It does, however, test ones patience when someone is wrong several times in one discussion when all they had to do was read the targets in question to understand what the articles are about. If you can't do your basic homework required

4011:

I disagree that pageviews are a circular argument; they demonstrate whether or not the redirect is useful, and experienced editors and administrators alike frequently use that in ascertaining whether to keep something. We have lots of redirects for memes, misspellings, alternative names, and that

331:

That's a bizarre consideration to make. Of course, the edit history will show who has contributed to the article once the article is created and those editors will get their credit that way. In the meantime, these redirects should point to a legitimate usage of "Halo 7/8", as has been identified.

5716:

But how likely is it that someone is going to mistype the wrong parenthetical qualifier? Otherwise, we could potentially add lots of redirects to target articles with multiple former occupations to them. I honestly think deletion is best here. If his primary occupation was as a reporter, then we

304:

to give some editor who created these redirects years ahead of their time article creation credit, if and when these are ultimately converted into articles? Unless there's a tool in the admin toolkit that can, appropriately, update the page creator, I just don't see how retargeting or keeping is

5093:

would be one, the two main themes of the period covered (1500-1850) are the shift away from large households (as economic units) to something more like modern families, and also a shift from houses built individually by their occupants (and largely vernacular) to the idea of on-spec building by

1882:

without leaving a redirect. Hopelessly ambiguous title, it could refer to almost anything on the DAB page; which includes no "History of" articles, so that anyone following this redirect to there would be left guessing. Although PSG is unambiguous to followers of association football, we cannot

5975:

per Narky Blert. Readers looking for another reporter by this name will be disappointed regardless, so we might as well help provide access to those looking for this one. I'd be less inclined to retarget if this Christopher Wilson were more well known for something else and had briefly been a

92:. Participants remain split between delete and two different retarget proposals. Based on the discussion, it seems reasonable to assume that most participants would prefer either of the retarget options over the current target, so no prejudice against someone boldly changing the targets. 3895:

it passes my pageview statistic test (402 pageviews for the period from January 30, 2019-January 29, 2020, inclusive, pre-nomination). That's, comfortably, above my minimum threshold of 5-10 pageviews per month to make it worth keeping. I would also add a more specific rcat besides

694:

song by the same artist. Deletion is best here because of that ambiguity, because of the low pageviews, and, in so doing, this will pave the way for potential future article creation if and when Microsoft announces the next installments in the primary topic gaming franchise or, if

3559: 4016:(i.e., pageviews are good for this) and whether it targets to the appropriate, or most appropriate, destination. I'm not sure we need the section in the existing target, so wouldn't be opposed to removing that, or to retargeting. Nonetheless, this does seem to be a legitimate 5313:. If the intent is to create an article at this title, I would recommend to go ahead and do it. In the disambiguation page's current form, it looks more like an article (probably a "stub"-class) masquerading as a disambiguation page rather than an actual disambiguation page. 5694:

rather than RFD) where a cue sports player was known for both pool and snooker. The consensus was that the article title should be qualified by the sport in which he was better known/had had more success, and that the other qualified title should redirect to that.

755:

clarified as the preceding discussion was not all that clear and then (b) thought there were to be different targets. Knowing that now, and since there are no other possible targets including Wiktionary soft redirect options, I am willing to change my !vote.

418:

Okay, fair enough. You've convinced me with the first sentence of your rationale to at least not be completely opposed to deletion. I'll leave my !vote stand, but I'm at least modestly supportive of retargeting (call it a "weak retarget" per your reply).

245:) There's nothing to keep here, and just because this game uses one or more songs from the proposed targets, I see no reason for keeping here, particularly since these will ultimately be needed for the future Halo games (once released). A clear-cut 5931:(c) we should be keeping multiple disambiguating redirects, which are themselves unlikely search terms and very implausible typographical errors, for another, unrelated target whose primary/principal occupation is as a biographer/journalist. 7096:

I'm doing my due diligence here, too. I've been trying to retarget instead of take them here when applicable, and while I may not be Chiswick Chap-level, I know a fair amount of LOTR, too. I'm aware if something generally very minor.

4769:

that information is. Since it's a misspelling, I don't see article creation as being viable, unless it becomes a massively viral meme, like "World spells 'javaccino' incorrectly as 'gavaccino' on massive scale; spawns viral meme".

3979:

for a ... rather long ... discussion where a similar claim was discovered to be made, and the redirects were deleted.) Without evidence or references of what this redirect actually means, the redirect in its current state is a

4201:

useful. The pageviews show us this is either (a) a type of specialty coffee beverage (i.e., we can see multiple online forums and blog posts on "how to make a 'gavaccino'") or (b) it's a semi-common misspelling, possibly for

3962:...Okay, so it has pageviews. Pageviews of a redirect do not validate that the redirect is pointing at the right target, nor does it validate that the redirect is an actual term for anything. Also, did you by chance find 4440:. As a late friend of mine, Fred Tutchings, one of nature's gentlemen, onetime Royal Navy signalman, and strong bridge player used to say when there was an argument at the card table: "Why don't you two get married?" 4405:, not at all. Seeing, though, your struck out section, and your subsequent comment, it's clear that you were seeing different results (or lack thereof, in your case) when searching Google. I hope that makes sense. 4556:

Thanks, but I never removed or modified other comments; only my own. In this case, since the issue was between Steel1943 and I, and I could see how my original statement was misinterpreted, out of an abundance of

224:

Redirect or delete, as mentioned these games aren't confirmed and there's not really any significant consensus of sources to refer to them this way either. Can be discussed again in the future if that changes.

4561:, I felt it was best to rephrase my above statements. Since much of the above between Steel1943 and I is not relevant to this discussion nor helpful to anyone, I'm just saying that if Steel1943 would like—and 3315:

NOTADICTIONARY has done its job by keeping us from writing dictionary articles on this website. There's no reason to not soft redirect something which we are confident that we don't need an article for.

5415:, and we have a number of willing editors to focus on searching to a greater degree to add more dab links and better refine it. An arguably very weak deletion case has been made on that basis, I think. 4356:

unless the previous statement is struck through (which was done) and there is clear emphasis on what was added, such as by using italics on the new text, in order for subsequent comments to make sense.

3141:

as not quite the right colloquial term. Rain is sometimes referred to as "pissing," but I've not heard it used in that exact phrasing. So, call it an implausibly incorrect phrasing deletion rationale.

690:

Noting your reply, the above, and that you also favoured deletion, I guess I misspoke or was confused. Nonetheless, there's no clear primary topic here if Halo 7 and Halo 8 can potentially refer to

1521: 5032:

The vast majority of vernacular architecture is domestic, and vice versa. If we actually had an article on Domestic architecture (which you say is a "valid topic"), what would it look like?

1252:

article they're seeking. Moreover, nom and Tavix note that there are more than two airports in Beijing, so we can potentially add even more than two dab links. We should also be encouraging

4751:

Yes, I should've clarified that, but the fact it's had more than 500 pageviews in the past twelve months, preceding its nomination day, suggests is a plausible typo worth keeping (thus the

363:. That's not say I wouldn't be opposed to keeping; in fact, I'm planning on refusing my !vote to basically anything other than retargeting to an unrelated or tangentially-related subject. 5097:

Vernacular is part of this, but it's only one part, and it wouldn't be an adequate coverage (even for a redir) to offer "vernacular" as an answer to "domestic". This is still a REDLINK.

3364:

soft redirects (a) help save us from having sub-stub dictionary definitions on English Knowledge and that, in turn, (b) provide for a soft cross-promotional opportunity for underutilized

596:

The fact we have two songs from different artists tells me we're kind of reaching to keep these redirects from deletion. It seems, to me, that deletion is best as we likely have no clear

5447:

See comments by Andy Dingley and by Steel1943 above: "domestic architecture" is, roughly speaking, (the study and/or practice of) the architecture of homes. (See also Susan Kent, 1990,

2899:

Not seeing any evidence that this is an alternative name for the target. Per the now-blocked creator's other contributions, seems this may have intended to target some topic related to

984: 8045: 6036: 6017: 1468: 39: 34: 4659:. The pageviews show this is quite a common misspelling, so we should retarget to that target, as it's more satisfying to the user in terms of what they're looking for, with rcats 3975:

argument: You are referencing the page views on Knowledge for the reason to keep the redirect without presenting evidence from third party sources the term's validity. Please see

3976: 4765:

et al. often remind us, it gets the users to their destination and to the information they're seeking. Since it's a list, there's a plethora of information available to satisfy

2765:... and considering that the upcoming film (currently in draft space) is about the tennis coach, I don't think any deletes will be necessary, only changing some rediects... - 5594: 7075:

Not sure I can do any better than you, and we're all volunteers, unless you're proposing I apply to WMF for a Tolkien scholarship or something (no thanks). He's very minor.

4815:, which may help explain the views. Combined with where the redirect points now, it suggests a coffee griding/brewing method that affects caffeine content. If not outright 5365:. The draft disambiguation page does not disambiguate the term: neither of the 2 entries mention the phrase. Search is better. A redlink would encourage article creation. 2367:, which was corrected by a bot to fix the double redirect a few minutes later. Per the edit history of the redirect, seems that it was created in a manner that violates 3233:

should mention every known slang term for rain; I could probably come up with 50. (3) I suspect a schoolboyish attempt to get something into WP, "Look what I've done".

2513:

Not mentioned at the target and almost certainly would not be DUE to mention it there, the redirect was created by a UPE editor who has since been blocked for socking.

1431:. As a non-notable character, he is not mentioned on the target list. In fact, he is never mentioned on Knowledge, so there are no suitable targets for this redirect. 7007:

Not mentioned at target article (and rather minor figure), and only mentioned in two places: in a list of all characters referenced in the credits of the movies at

4535:) any of your own comments which you'd like to remove from the discussion. Deletion from, or editing someone else's posts on, a discussion page is not a good idea. 3563: 5499: 518:

How is there not a clear target? Searching "Halo 7" in the search bar only provides results related to the Nine Inch Nails usage, and the only target for that is

2225: 4290:, so please don't claim that I did; obviously, a third party search engine search is sufficient. And I don't know where in the heck you saw me disagree that " 3860:...Apparently, my third party search engines aren't working correctly for some reason. See the discussion with the external link for the search provided by 1689:. He is not notable, and thus not described on the target list. I am fairly sure he is not described anywhere on the Wiki; he is certainly not mentioned on 4916: 2490: 2336: 7783: 195:

No reliable sources confirm that seventh or eighth games in the series have been announced. These redirects should either be respectively retargeted to "

7130: 4939:

I'm finding no evidence on third-party search engines that this redirect is exclusive to its target. For example, this redirect could also refer to an

3417: 2696: 8021:

Morgulduin and Poros (Middle-earth) are former articles who were redirected to another page. Tarnost was merged, but then the page it was merged to

7045:

for his expertise on these on whether it's a major or minor plot or character element, and then evaluate how often these redirects are being used. --

3297:, we can't just redirect everything to our dictionary sister project. We should reserve these for likely search terms or common words and phrases. -- 6202:

Malformed capitalization and extremely low usage (~18-20 pageviews in the preceding 12 months, pre-nomination), this is similar to the redirect for

2876: 2220: 1305:, with brief information and relevant links. Because it's so detailed, I'm (for once) not worried about the possibility of accumulating bad links. 725:

There is no ambiguity! Halo 7 is one song and Halo 8 is a different song. The games you are referring to do not exist so you are falling for the

5407:

article creation exactly? We already have several articles on house design, construction, planning, and architecture. Note, too, that the draft

7867: 21: 7909: 6111: 3910: 3089: 3049: 1061: 1049: 6984: 5094:

builders, then for sale or rent, where we see estates of matching designs start to appear and architectural styling and fashion takes over.

2241:, unlikely spelling. I assumed this was the name of a band when I saw it, but nothing musical came up when I typed this name into Google. 1831: 1085: 249:

reason here. But, besides that, no reason for the redirect creator to receive article creation credit for the future Halo game editions. --

6206:, which had ~18-20 pageviews as well. No prejudice to someone re-creating it, of course, but we don't need to keep low usage redirects. -- 4352:". It makes me look like I was responding to something other than what I was responding to. It is bad form to alter statements which have 4397:

For clarity, I took from your reference to "evidence" and to your ignoring my provided Google search results as meaning that you wanted

2131: 1819: 5309:: The draft disambiguation page looks like it should actually be an article about a subject by this name, especially given the section 7573: 5588: 17: 1525: 8084: 7936:

as the name of a playable character, likely taken from the Middle-earth context, but the mention is in a trivial context). Also, if

7933: 7531: 7315: 7305: 4807:

I'm not sure we have the full story here, but what we do have only points me to deletion. I see a grand total of 12 (!) results for

2395:

with fire. No history here, no merge, has always been a redirect from the draft space to the article space. Nothing of value here.

7134:

closely-related and uncontentious nominations. But there are just so many bad redirects and this is the only venue to delete them.

489:

No clear target. Search engine will serve a better purpose for visitors searching for these terms than any redirect possibly could.

5076:

But the majority of domestic architecture isn't necessarily vernacular, and that's the direction which we'd care more about here.

1542:

I've listed three Durin-related redirects at RfD. The others are all either mentioned in the dwarf article or the Moria article.

7615: 3900: 3503: 1905:, as the club's name is not PSG F.C. The current location of the article itself is correct, the issue is this redirect...... -- 584: 3229:. If the WP article doesn't mention a term, a redirect from it is useless to readers. And, I can't for the life of me think why 1537: 6313: 5972: 5718: 5686: 5648: 5544: 3809: 2743: 2684: 1650: 1388: 401:, so they shouldn't be used now). We have useful targets now, so they should redirect there until or unless that day comes. -- 7741: 7699: 1969: 5224: 3217:(neutral no longer). (1) "It's pissing down" and "it's pissing it down" are interchangeable. (2) Anyone looking for a slang 3009:

without prejudice against a soft redirect to Wiktionary. Consensus is clear that no one wants these to continue pointing at

5902:

cannot apply. As well, different editors have taken the perspective on whether retargeting to a new target is considered a

1467:

This should be (fingers crossed) the last of the Middle-earth dwarf redirects. I nominated most of them in the first pass:

7825: 7489: 6784: 6595: 6394: 6203: 5793:

at the time it was created and also because there was a redirect that was added by another user. Thus, I'm bringing it to

5722: 4992:, which has issues but will probably help most readers, as the vast majority of Domestic architecture is vernacular. The 3424: 3112:

Not mentioned in target article. It seems to be a phrase related to heavy amounts of rain, but it seems to be a slang-ish

5617:

Not mentioned in the target. Implausible search term. No context in which the target is related to the subject redirect.

4028:, not redirects. Nevertheless, it clearly doesn't apply here as this is a very real type of specialty coffee beverage. -- 3193:. Precise colloquial British English for heavy rain; as are e.g. "chucking it down" and "tipping it down", among others. 8022: 8011: 7657: 7398: 7281: 7188: 7061: 6693: 6434: 6222: 5956: 5910:

be "significant" whereas Glades12 views that as a "significant" edit. Nevertheless, where we're at is whether or not it:

5817: 5741: 5633: 5431: 5296: 5251: 5194: 4786: 4705: 4593: 4482: 4421: 4268: 4206:," which is like an iced frappé, Frappuccino, or some other hot or cold espresso-based specialty coffee beverage. While 4044: 3952: 3694: 3602: 3471: 3388: 3178: 2747: 2600: 2040: 1662: 1400: 1284: 949: 852: 772: 715: 632: 435: 379: 321: 265: 172: 130: 389:

Well no, these redirects were originally created for the Nine Inch Nails usage, just like all the other redirects from

8057: 8034: 8016: 7971: 7953: 7464: 7403: 7374: 7353: 7327: 7256: 7193: 7164: 7143: 7106: 7084: 7066: 7028: 6959: 6898: 6879: 6859: 6833: 6759: 6698: 6655: 6633: 6553: 6526: 6456: 6439: 6385: 6355: 6288: 6227: 6194: 6171: 6149: 6086: 5985: 5961: 5861: 5822: 5761: 5746: 5704: 5679: 5660: 5638: 5567: 5460: 5436: 5391: 5374: 5355: 5328: 5301: 5256: 5215: 5199: 5106: 5069: 5049: 5027: 5005: 4980: 4958: 4891: 4828: 4791: 4755: 4739: 4710: 4683: 4639: 4617: 4598: 4544: 4516: 4487: 4449: 4426: 4381: 4317: 4273: 4226: 4146: 4122: 4071: 4049: 4003: 3957: 3930: 3881: 3850: 3784: 3715: 3699: 3653: 3607: 3476: 3429: 3393: 3345: 3327: 3306: 3285: 3259: 3242: 3209: 3183: 3131: 3024: 2957: 2942: 2918: 2851: 2791: 2774: 2759: 2734: 2671: 2605: 2554: 2524: 2465: 2404: 2386: 2311: 2250: 2231: 2208: 2187: 2169: 2106: 2045: 1999: 1981: 1954: 1940: 1914: 1896: 1869: 1806: 1745: 1724: 1706: 1637: 1576: 1551: 1529: 1498: 1480: 1458: 1440: 1375: 1314: 1289: 1204: 1183: 1127: 1105: 1036: 954: 857: 792: 777: 738: 720: 670: 637: 588: 559: 531: 502: 479: 440: 410: 384: 341: 326: 291: 270: 231: 218: 206: 103: 4197:

of redirects, incorrect, commonly used redirects targeted to the proper article with the correct information can be

2928: 2750:), then when your article goes live we can change the redirect... no real reason to delete the current article... - 5837: 5337: 3920: 1887:

would be an unambiguous search term which means that readers don't have to know, or remember, what PSG stands for.

542: 459: 7932:

More regions removed from the Gondor article and not mentioned anywhere else (Note: "Angbor" is mentioned once at

7442: 7232: 6937: 6737: 6498: 6266: 6062: 5769:

True, but then makes an even stronger case for deletion. In any case, this redirect in question was created by a

5530: 5505: 4867: 4302:

because I'm getting to a point where I'm considering requesting a two-way interaction ban between us. Thank you.

3756: 2996: 2829: 2644: 2567: 2443: 2289: 2084: 1784: 1615: 1353: 1010: 580: 79: 4910: 2484: 2330: 359:

article with only a vaguely related passing reference is helpful. I think this is a case of us over-reaching to

7777: 4673: 4236: 3438: 3410: 2690: 2563: 2534: 2020: 1163: 1153: 1244:

trying to guess which is primary topic when it's not particularly onerous to our patrons to click through the

1232:

the airport, produces about 3.5 million Google web search results versus about 1 million for Beijing Capital,

2870: 8053: 8025:

I think) was redirected, so the content isn't around anywhere anymore. The rest have always been redirects.

7967: 7160: 7139: 7122: 7080: 6807:

Not mentioned in target article. Per third-party search engines, this word seems to have some connection to

6452: 5656: 5370: 5147: 5127: 5065: 5056: 5037: 4989: 4735: 4635: 4613: 3353: 3255: 2730: 2575: 1720: 1702: 1494: 1476: 1454: 1436: 1298: 1200: 7861: 5310: 4899: 2473: 2319: 7941: 7937: 7766: 6894: 6105: 5102: 5023: 4976: 3567: 3491: 3083: 3043: 2938: 1996: 1950: 1910: 1225: 597: 7903: 6978: 1928: 1902: 1884: 1879: 1825: 7438: 7349: 7228: 6933: 6855: 6733: 6671: 6651: 6494: 6381: 6262: 6190: 6058: 5887: 5782: 5757: 5700: 5526: 4863: 4727: 4656: 4652: 4570: 4540: 4445: 4219: 3752: 3238: 3205: 2992: 2953: 2859: 2825: 2784: 2667: 2640: 2550: 2439: 2285: 2196: 2183: 2125: 2080: 1892: 1780: 1686: 1611: 1428: 1349: 1310: 1143: 1006: 893: 726: 75: 7567: 6843: 5906:

edit to qualify for G5, with Rosguill and I either fairly uncertain or certain that such an edit would

7850: 7525: 6397:, ~18 pageviews in the pre-nomination preceding 12 months. Fails pageview and usage requirement test. 5400: 2178:

for the double reason identified by nom. (I thought they might be a band, but they don't seem to be.)

1257: 605: 55:

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 31, 2020.

7609: 7008: 6094: 5937: 5797:. I wouldn't be completely opposed to you, or someone else, re-creating it (if really that there was 5154:

as both are reasonable targets. There is little prospect of this being converted to an article, so a

4663: 4246: 3675: 3663: 3072: 2770: 2755: 2368: 1694: 1690: 1517: 1507: 1424: 1055: 903: 7892: 6967: 6307: 4080:", you'll have to back that up with a reference since, as I said, third party search engines return 4067: 3803: 1814: 7735: 7693: 6972: 6875: 6829: 6629: 6351: 6181: 6145: 5857: 5563: 5324: 4954: 4512: 4377: 4313: 4142: 4118: 3999: 3877: 3846: 3127: 3019: 2914: 2679: 2382: 2165: 2114: 884: 667: 655: 575: 214: 201: 7819: 7556: 7483: 6778: 8049: 8030: 7982: 7963: 7949: 7651: 7514: 7370: 7323: 7275: 7156: 7135: 7102: 7076: 7042: 7024: 6448: 5652: 5366: 5135: 5061: 4746: 4731: 4648: 4631: 4609: 3972: 3560:

give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime

3486: 3251: 2900: 2571: 2400: 2246: 2204: 1741: 1716: 1698: 1572: 1547: 1490: 1472: 1450: 1432: 1394: 1196: 747:

as I wasn't "wrong yet again." I thought (a) they were different songs from different arts until

7598: 5174:. Better to direct users/patrons to the article(s) with which they're seeking. Note, too, other 4094:

before), so you will have to provide a reference to back up that claim; without it, that claim "

6296: 4300:

stop claiming that I said either the opposite of what I said or that I said something I did not

3792: 1084:

Dabify as there are now two main airports with commercial service serving Beijing (Capital and

7724: 7682: 6890: 5211: 5155: 5098: 5045: 5019: 5018:

have this redirect, i.e. we ought to point it to a wrong place, if we don't have a right one.

5001: 4972: 4968: 4346:...commonly used redirects targeted to the proper article with the correct information can be 4292:...commonly used redirects targeted to the proper article with the correct information can be 4128: 3666:

as MediaWiki and/or most, if not all, modern web browsers adjust for the casing of the URL so

2948:. Anyway, I can't think of a good target; and no target which mentions it = useless redirect. 2542: 1993: 1946: 1906: 1656: 1261: 1241: 1097: 870: 650: 570: 519: 496: 394: 196: 7808: 7472: 7437:

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

7227:

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

6932:

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

6767: 6732:

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

6493:

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

6261:

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

6179:. All a search yielded was various alternatives to tea, and a redirect to entry "Tea" in the 6057:

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

5525:

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

4862:

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

3751:

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

2991:

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

2824:

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

2639:

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

2438:

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

2284:

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

2079:

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

1779:

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

1610:

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

1348:

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

1005:

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

8003: 7640: 7390: 7362: 7345: 7264: 7180: 7053: 6851: 6815: 6685: 6664: 6647: 6426: 6377: 6214: 6186: 5948: 5809: 5766: 5753: 5733: 5713: 5696: 5625: 5456: 5423: 5399:

With the greatest of respect to Shhhnotsoloud and Cnilep, and those arguing for deletion on

5387: 5288: 5277: 5243: 5186: 5077: 4816: 4778: 4697: 4585: 4551: 4536: 4474: 4458: 4441: 4413: 4260: 4036: 3944: 3686: 3594: 3463: 3380: 3357: 3294: 3234: 3222: 3218: 3201: 3170: 3113: 2949: 2663: 2592: 2546: 2179: 2032: 1888: 1383: 1306: 1276: 1265: 941: 926: 844: 783:

of your participation, the discussions would go much smoother without your participation. --

764: 707: 624: 427: 371: 313: 257: 246: 226: 160: 118: 6369: 4812: 3667: 3527: 3151: 3116:

that could leave readers confused being forwarded to any specific target for this phrase.

3032: 2766: 2751: 2195:: Leftover redirect after cleaning up from an inappropriate move. There's also a related 1044: 830: 826: 660: 356: 279: 3447:

Thank you for your, as always, concise and rationale argument, but I noted you linked to

3221:

in an encyclopaedia is looking in the wrong place: they should be looking somewhere like

1645: 4996:

argument is very weak as they don't really have "architecture", any more than rooms do.

6865: 6847: 6819: 6619: 6406: 6341: 6135: 5918: 5914: 5891: 5884: 5877: 5847: 5778: 5774: 5770: 5553: 5549: 5314: 5014:

But domestic doesn't mean anything remotely like vernacular. There is no reason why we

4944: 4808: 4502: 4462: 4392: 4367: 4303: 4186: 4163: 4132: 4108: 4097: 4008: 3989: 3981: 3967: 3867: 3836: 3278: 3117: 3016: 2904: 2726: 2659: 2372: 2155: 1715:. Are we having a competition for most minor dwarf? This one's nano, to coin a phrase. 1176: 916: 750: 685: 664: 210: 3510:, of these soft redirects to Wiktionary, which help to promote the little-used sister 8078: 8026: 7992: 7986: 7945: 7460: 7366: 7319: 7249: 7098: 7020: 6955: 6755: 6519: 6398: 6284: 6167: 6134:

The target page is unclear in what the adjective "Alternative" is meant to refer to.

6079: 5981: 5899: 5895: 5794: 5790: 5672: 5351: 5171: 4884: 4824: 4566: 4558: 4193:

doubt, I should add a general point of relevant information to the discussion on the

3777: 3708: 3662:

Thanks, Rosguill. I don't think I clarified above that I don't think we need to keep

3646: 3583: 3531: 3452: 3448: 3406: 3341: 3320: 3302: 3159: 2847: 2517: 2461: 2396: 2307: 2242: 2200: 2102: 1977: 1936: 1862: 1802: 1737: 1633: 1568: 1543: 1371: 1302: 1032: 930: 744: 472: 360: 351: 96: 6337: 5801:

of it) to a different target, but given all of that, I think deletion is best here.

5647:. Since there is no specific mention in the target, this redirect is ambiguous with 3773:, I think there is a consensus to delete among all other editors in the discussion. 3671: 355:

Not all editors may have that motivation, but I just don't see how retargeting to a

282:

usage as identified by the nom since the video games have not yet been confirmed. --

7337: 7126: 7038: 7016: 6589: 5691: 5220: 5207: 5131: 5041: 4997: 4402: 4398: 4359:(As of this moment, I have not read or acknowledged any other edits or messages by 4287: 4176: 4167: 4101: 4055: 4021: 3985: 2538: 2478: 1449:, as minor as they come. Couldn't we group some of these guys to do a bulk delete. 1213: 1089: 553: 513: 492: 7921: 7879: 7837: 7795: 7753: 7711: 7669: 7627: 7585: 7543: 7501: 7341: 7293: 6996: 6796: 6607: 6565: 6325: 6123: 5606: 4928: 3821: 3101: 3061: 2888: 2708: 2502: 2348: 2143: 1843: 1674: 1412: 1073: 393:

onward target likewise. It is disingenuous to delete a redirect for essentially a

184: 142: 4298:" With that being said, I'm going be very blunt with this next statement: Please 4203: 3368:. As a side note, I've noticed page move and deletion discussions there can take 985:

Knowledge:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 10#List of US assassinations

7996: 7383: 7173: 7113: 7091: 7046: 6678: 6419: 6207: 5941: 5802: 5726: 5618: 5452: 5416: 5383: 5281: 5236: 5179: 4771: 4717: 4690: 4578: 4528: 4467: 4406: 4281: 4253: 4029: 3937: 3770: 3679: 3587: 3571: 3555: 3456: 3373: 3163: 2585: 2025: 1269: 934: 837: 757: 700: 644: 617: 420: 364: 306: 250: 166: 124: 2359:

Improper use of the "Draft:" namespace. Was initially created as a redirect to

1567:, I can find no references on the English Knowledge using the search function. 1224:

article is particularly onerous. As well, I don't think there's a clear enough

6864:...Corrected. I think I blame my geolocation for my messed up search results. 6643: 6547: 6512: 6159: 5785:

had been blocked for serial sockpuppetry. It can't be G5'ed, in part, because

5582: 5280:

et al., feel free to edit, revise, or add to, as potential targets are found.

5060:

Johnbod's right here, Vernacular architecture is a very good target for this.

4762: 3629: 3547: 3543: 3535: 3511: 3499: 3495: 3365: 3361: 3226: 2933: 2864: 1119: 912: 814: 784: 730: 523: 415: 402: 333: 283: 7336:. The power plant is "Lihir" not "Linhir" (now corrected in the article), on 2657:. No longer a redirect, it is now an article as explained in the discussion. 2154:

Unconventional use of the word "The" + misspelling = unlikely and unhelpful.

608:

if and when the 7th and 8th installments of the Halo gaming franchise, which

6850:

applies. (Indian-language words for tea are likely to be "cha" or similar.)

6365: 4993: 4940: 4017: 3539: 3273: 3155: 2720: 2360: 1171: 1469:

Knowledge:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_January_25#Middle-earth_Dwarves

1228:

here because searching for Beijing Daxing, without quotation marks but all

7431:

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

7221:

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

6926:

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

6726:

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

6487:

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

6255:

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

6051:

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

5894:. The user's VivaSlava account hadn't yet been found out and added to the 5519:

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

4856:

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

3745:

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

2985:

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

2818:

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

2633:

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

2432:

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

2278:

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

2073:

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

1773:

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

1604:

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

1342:

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

999:

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

68:

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

7456: 7012: 6951: 6751: 6280: 6163: 6018:

Knowledge:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 7#Human biodiversity

5977: 5347: 5089:

If you look at books specifically on domestic architecture, James Ayres'

4820: 3337: 3298: 2843: 2457: 2324: 2303: 2119: 2098: 1973: 1932: 1798: 1629: 1367: 1260:

likely applies (though there's no need to delete to do this, since we're

1028: 836:

the correct target? I can't endorse retargeting there without a mention.

6373: 4971:. It's a valid topic, but we don't have a decent target for a redirect. 3518:

when the pageviews for terms support it, include the following "gems":

4655:. There's even an embedded anchor there to which we can target—that is 3519: 1192: 1136: 1115: 1024: 8069: