Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 January 23

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

January 23

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 23, 2016.

Stop Child Trafficking

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 16:13, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Partial name match, but really just a generic slogan without the NOW part. Reader is better served by auto complete or search results. Legacypac (talk) 23:51, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Development consultant

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 16:12, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From the incoming links (and web search in the real world), development consultants are more likely to be involved in International development or similar fields rather than developmental psychology or say developmental biology. A plausibly better target than developmental psychology might be Consultant, or International development, or perhaps dabification is in order. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:48, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Christmas shops

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 1#Christmas shops

Freedom of Information Act

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was accept proposal to disambiguate. Deryck C. 21:51, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to nominate this redirect for disambiguation. I boldly converted this page into a disambiguation page, but it was reverted. A reader searching for "Freedom of Information Act" would be looking for a specific piece of legislation called "Freedom of Information Act". The current target of the redirect, Freedom of information laws by country, lists various laws around the world that are not necessarily titled "Freedom of Information Act". I also sampled the many incoming links to the redirect, and most refer to specific legislation, not the general concept of freedom of information laws. Because there are multiple laws specifically titled "Freedom of Information Act", and there is no primary topic, I believe this should be a disambiguation page. Mz7 (talk) 22:43, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support DAB as there are multiple acts and the primary totally depends on the reader's location. Legacypac (talk) 22:52, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this is to be something other than a redirect, it should be a set index, in accordance with WP:DABCONCEPT. A "Freedom of Information Act" is, without exception, a kind of law that requires a government to give access to information in its possession. If this is a disambiguation page, it can only list the small minority of acts having an article in the encyclopedia. As a set index, it would be able to provide information on all acts by this name. bd2412 T 23:39, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't see a set index as necessary, because its content would be redundant to Freedom of information laws by country, which is effectively the "broad-concept article" under WP:DABCONCEPT. That article already describes the laws of many countries that require a government to give access to information. "Freedom of Information Act" refers to a subset of those laws. You're right, there are some laws called "Freedom of Information Act" that don't have articles, but we can link to Freedom of information laws by country, which already describes them, in a disambiguation page, like how FOIA does it. Mz7 (talk) 23:51, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If all of these describe the same kind of law, how would the resulting page not be WP:DABCONCEPT? Also, since the purpose of this discussion is to create a new disambiguation page, please notify the disambiguation project of this discussion, and please fix all incoming links before any change to the nature of the page is carried out. bd2412 T 01:28, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm assuming you mean WikiProject Disambiguation. I wasn't aware that it was standard practice to notify this WikiProject of creating new disambiguation pages. I have now left a notice on their talk page, as well as at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation for good measure. My argument is that we already have a page that is WP:DABCONCEPT: Freedom of information laws by country. This article describes the general concept of a law requiring a government to give access to information in its possession, and lists such laws of different countries. Freedom of Information Act is currently a redirect to this broad-concept article; however, it should instead be a disambiguation page that points to articles about specific freedom of information laws that are titled "Freedom of Information Act". With regards to the incoming links, that will still be a problem even if the result of this discussion is to keep the redirect (readers clicking a link for the US Freedom of Information Act wouldn't want to be redirected to a broad-concept article about freedom of information laws in general). Thus, I don't see a pressing reason to fix all of the links before the page is changed (it will need to be done at some point, of course). Mz7 (talk) 02:07, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Turning this page into a disambiguation page creates a sudden spike in the number of disambiguation links that raises red flags for disambiguators. Doing so carelessly wastes a lot of the time of a lot of people who are working to improve problems. Furthermore, fixing disambiguation links before changing the nature of the page is disambiguation policy (see WP:FIXDABLINKS). bd2412 T 02:46, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Point taken. I will start working on this. Mz7 (talk) 03:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - though I still think that the term is a topic of its own. We could easily have an article starting, "A Freedom of Information Act is a kind of legislation that..." bd2412 T 03:45, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Actually, I think I'm starting to see what you mean. As long as we aren't being overly redundant to Freedom of information laws by country, I have no problem with starting an article with "A Freedom of Information Act is a kind of legislation that..." Mz7 (talk) 19:36, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I've started to fix the links to Freedom of Information Act. However, there were 500+ potentially problematic pages when I started the process, and there are still 450+ now. It's clear that this is going to take a little while. I've added links to the FOIAs with articles at the redirect page to make it easier to fix the links by using WP:AWB. Mz7 (talk) 23:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Arlene Ackerman (reverend)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus, default to keep. The main arguments are: On the ond hand, Arlene Ackerman is no longer mentioned in the target article so we shouldn't preserve the redirect. On the other hand, the target is unambiguously the appropriate superset topic for these titles so there may be some value in preserving the redirect even if the target article makes no explicit mention of Arlene Ackerman. Deryck C. 21:13, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This was redirected at AfD. Keep voters asserted Ackerman's role with the church was equivalent to that of a Catholic cardinal, but now she's not even mentioned at the church's page. --BDD (talk) 22:02, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep - it's worth noting all but one of the keep voters were sockpuppets of a banned user. I strongly disagree that Ackerman's position was on par with a Cardinal, the comparison is frankly mind-bogglingly inaccurate, it's like saying Michael Bates (prince of the Principality of Sealand) is equivalent to Joe Biden. At best, if she must be compared to the Catholic Church, she is a priest(ess) of somewhat elevated prominence. But that's all beside the point. She is definitely associated with the MCC, so redirecting a search for her to the church's page is sensible. Probably there should be info about her there, but it's okay that there's not. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RFD#D2 confusing: not mentioned at target. If kept, we should hatnote Arlene Ackerman. Si Trew (talk) 08:33, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 22:20, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Regardless of the magnitude of role, redirecting a non-notable child-article to a more notable parent is not only accepted but often encouraged. As Ivanvector says, we generally want info about her in the target article but it's okay if there's not. Rossami (talk) 05:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per SimonTrew. Unless there's some information on her at the page, all we're doing is misleading, confusing and disappointing readers who are looking for information specifically about Arlene, not a church in general. -- Tavix (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Romani people in Portugal and Brazil

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy deleted by Anthony Bradbury (talk · contribs). (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 17:17, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This might have been from a page move but it is a very misleading redirect. There is no information about Brazil at target, nor should there ever be. Legacypac (talk) 22:05, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That makes it an XY. Legacypac (talk) 00:03, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Shapeepee

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy deleted by Anthony Bradbury (talk · contribs). (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 17:17, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible, not even in Urban Dictionary. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 21:52, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Comes v. Microsoft

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) sst✈ (speak now) 01:44, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does not point to any actual info. It never did. Not even the day it was created. (I checked the article history of it target, Microsoft litigation. Nothing.) Codename Lisa (talk) 21:05, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and Refine to Microsoft litigation#Anti-trust. I expanded the target article to explain the lawsuits. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:42, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I added an anchor so that the original redirect points to this text (which is supported by a reference): In 2000, a group of customers and business filed a class action suit in Comes v. Microsoft Corp., alleging that Microsoft violated Iowa's antitrust laws by engaging in monopolistic practices.[17] Ottawahitech (talk) 21:38, 24 January 2016 (UTC)please ping me[reply]
  • Keep Per Ottawahitech and above. It is reasonable to expect people to search for this. Mrfrobinson (talk) 22:12, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In an ongoing process to help build the infrastructure for not yet adequately covered topics I created the redirect so that readers/editors searching for this notable topic would be directed to the natural place for information about it to accumulate (until enough information has been collected to split it out into an article of its own), even though the article only discussed Microsoft anti-trust issues in general not the Comes case specifically and I didn't had the time to expand on this myself back then either. However, basic information about the Comes case was soon added by another editor, and I particularly would like to thank Notecardforfree and Ottawahitech for their recent additions. So putting trust in the collaboration of constructive editors worked out nicely.
If we'd want to further expand the topic, several highly interesting including some historically relevant court documents have been preserved here.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 17:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Dryskinned

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 15:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to not be an English word but a brand name (or part of several brand names). Doesn't seem to match the target. Suggestions? Legacypac (talk) 20:50, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Xerodermic

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 15:54, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Xerodermic means "both dry and hot" like a climate. Xeroderma means dry skin. Neelix seems to have created these redirects by modifying words but not checking them for meanings. Legacypac (talk) 20:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:REFORMCOMMUNITY

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus, noting that the first item has already been deleted. --BDD (talk) 15:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deceptive redirect. This goes to page in userspace, where only those who agree with the host are allowed to express their opinion. Those who disagree are banned and have their comments removed. That's fine, they can have their private little club, but it's not the "reform community" Beeblebrox (talk) 19:29, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I change my vote to keep if these reform proposals are given a name and moved out of userspace.
It is a commonly accepted rule that redirects do not go into userspace. Change the page to "WP:Biscuittin's Wikipedia reform proposal" and the concern goes away. There are lots of other options to consider but the general rule is no redirects into userspace. I could help anyone consider options. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:18, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Bluerasberry, please see the new essay. QuackGuru (talk) 19:34, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
QuackGuru Keep. This is a redirect to an essay in WP: space. The original rationale for deletion has been addressed. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Mrfrobinson, the page was converted to an essay after you commented. QuackGuru (talk) 19:52, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How is an essay a community as one of the redirects suggests? Legacypac (talk) 20:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Legacypac, the redirect WP:REFORMCOMMUNITY was removed from the page a while ago. It will be deleted soon. The sister redirect Wikipedia:REFORMWIKIPEDIA is on target. QuackGuru (talk) 21:00, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

BoxeR

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. --BDD (talk) 15:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re-targeting to Boxer. Boxer is the same as BoxeR. BoxeR (video gamer) is being redirected to Lim Yo-hwan. Sawol (talk) 08:52, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • REtarget to boxer -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 11:43, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:RFD#D2 confusing. Retargeting it is unnecessary. Si Trew (talk) 12:21, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; BoxeR is Lim Yo-hwan's pseudonym/stagename (see lead sentence of that article). Softlavender (talk) 21:04, 23 January 2016 (UTC); edited 21:08, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  The article states, "This is a redirect from a page that has been moved (renamed). This page was kept as a redirect to avoid breaking links, both internal and external, that may have been made to the old page name..."  The edit history states, User:Malcolmxl5, "2016-01-22T09:08:13...(Malcolmxl5 moved page BoxeR to Lim Yo-hwan: Per requested move discussion, see talk page.)"  In the edit history, User:JamesBWatson states, "This is far more likely to be searched for as a name for Lim Yo-hwan than as a typo for 'boxer'. Also, it is simply not true that this is a camel case redirect retained from early versions of Wikipedia: it was recently created."  I agree with all of the above.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:55, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article Lim Yo-hwan states that Lim Yo-hwan is known as "BoxeR", and indeed a few quick searches confirm that this is so: he is so called, for example, at [1], [2], and [3]. Granted that "BoxeR" is a recognised and widely used name for him, it is perfectly likely that readers may search for him under that name. It is, of course, conceivable that someoe sometime may search for "BoxeR" when they are after information about boxers, but it is not particularly likely: suddenly capitalising the last letter of a word for no apparent reason is not a common kind of typo (unlike, for example, "BOxer", where one's left finger does not let go of the shift key before one's right finger presses the "O"). Thus, people typing "BoxeR" are far more likely to be looking for information about the person commonly referred to as "BoxeR" than to be looking for information about boxers. Another consideration is that the article Lim Yo-hwan existed for over ten years first under the title BoxeR (video gamer) and then under the title BoxeR before being moved to its present title, so that there is a significant likelihood that there are people around who knew it by its old title and will try to go back to it under that title: retargetting the redirect will not help them. When an article has existed for a long time under a particular title and then moved, deleting the redirect from the old title is likely to be unhelpful, and should not be done without good reason. All things considered, it is so clear that people typing "BoxeR" into Wikipedia are more likely to be after information about the person commonly known as "BoxeR" than after information about boxing that I am genuinely amazed that it is at all controversial. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 22:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If kept, the target needs hatnoting, per WP:DIFFCAPS. Si Trew (talk) 04:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is because this appears to be the more intended destination. I concur, however, that we'll need some hatnotes. Rossami (talk) 05:19, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rossami --Lenticel (talk) 09:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Non-males

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 15:50, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are a bunch of terms in the article but these are not there. There is no special connection between non-males (whatever that means exactly) and Thai ladyboys. Neelix nonsense. Legacypac (talk) 06:05, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A person can be male or female and be asexual. I think a non-male is a female and a non-female is a male, unless part of a species that don't have gender distinctions. Legacypac (talk) 20:18, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We should be careful to not reinforce gender binaries. Nor should we confuse gender with sexuality. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:48, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
on second thought, a person or animal could be altered into not being a male but that does not make them a female. The current target is not correct. The phrase is pretty self explanatory to a point. We don't have Non Canadian or Non-snake or Non shopping cart etc. And to anyone that says we should stop Neelix cleanup just look at this redirect. Legacypac (talk) 01:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That wouldn't work, as there isn't a Wiktionary entry on the term. -- Tavix (talk) 17:45, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to gender or delete -- this is clearly a general topic not restricted to Thailand. -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 04:52, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Obviously the current target is no good, but I can't find a suitable alternative. Gender has been the best suggestion so far, but it's too broad and doesn't include the phrase in it, so it's likely to confuse or disappoint someone looking for that specific phrase. Non-male ≠ female, so I would oppose retargeting there. Male is an interesting option as a(n) {{R from antonym}}: once "male" is defined, you can kinda sorta figure out what isn't a male, but it still requires legwork from our readers and could be a WP:SURPRISE. Without a good retargeting option, I believe deletion is the only logical solution. -- Tavix (talk) 23:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as blatantly misleading, since (as stated above again and again) being "not male" can mean a number of personal identies from being cisgender female to being genderqueer to being transgender female and so on. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:13, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Welltodo

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 15:50, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not how you spell well-to-do. Welltodo is actually the name of an app dealing with migraine management, and several other heath and wellness programs. Delete to encourage article creation. Neelix Legacypac (talk) 05:17, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Bob Tucker (businessman)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. Of course, they'll all go per G8 if the target article is deleted. --BDD (talk) 15:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neelix created an article about a man that is borderline notable who was married to an actress of some notability. Then he sent these 18 redirects at the article that clutter up search. Anyone using the search box is going to find the actual article anyway. Useless so delete. Legacypac (talk) 04:56, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The Passenger (2007 film)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete all. The rough consensus below is that these redirects are unhelpful because the film was never completed. Deryck C. 21:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no 2007/8 film by this name. According to the target, the project has been shelved. -- Tavix (talk) 04:28, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

edited, I hadn't realised it was R to section already: actually the section was "Future biopic" but has been renamed, so I've fixed these and added an anchor and courtesy note per WP:RSECT at the target. Si Trew (talk) 12:06, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonTrew: I've removed the reference in List of biographical films. The film was shelved, so there's no reason for it to be listed there. I didn't see it mentioned at Passenger (disambiguation). The key here is the disambiguation of "2007/8 film," it's a misleading disambiguator because it implies a film that was released in one of those two years, which, it was not. Someone had a faulty WP:CRYSTALBALL. -- Tavix (talk) 16:21, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't too sure about whether it was valid to be in the list of films; some lists have different rules from others. The question I'd ask was "if someone was searching for this aborted film, what would they try to type (if they didn't know that Iggy Pop was behind it)? I really haven't a clue. I'm not sure that CRYSTAL is relevant; an aborted project still had existence, if only a fleeting one. To say that the film is "upcoming" in the DAB at Passenger (disambiguation) is crystal if not Just Plain Wrong, and perhaps we should change the adjective there to "aborted" or some such. Si Trew (talk) 16:29, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Socio-technically

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 1#Socio-technically

Sociotechnologies

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Sociotechnology. (non-admin closure) sst✈ (speak now) 15:36, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Though these look close, the redirects and the target appear to be pretty different concepts. Delete to encourage article creation. Legacypac (talk) 03:18, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Roughskinned

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 15:34, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not an actual word in reliable sources. Not found at target. Rough skinned and similar will be retargeted at Rough skinned newt which seems to be the primary meaning for this phrase. Legacypac (talk) 02:14, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I retargeted Rough skinned → Rough-skinned newt based on Google search results. I'm open to better ideas. Rough-skinned turns out to be excluded from the Neelix target list because a bot touched it (the lists are based on ones only Neelix edited). [5] was created by Neelix in 2006 and pointed at the Rough-skinned newt, then retargeted by him in Nov 2014 at Xeroderma. I'm not convinced that dry = rough Legacypac (talk) 19:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_23&oldid=1146032862"