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 delete. This is a bit of an unusual closure because nobody except Tavix argued for outright deletion. However, nobody wanted a "keep" close and it seemed that there's disagreement with every proposed alternative retarget. So I think "delete" is the appropriate outcome. "No consensus, default to delete" seems to be a significant theme of RfD closures. Deryck C. 10:54, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Disbeliever → Kafir  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Nominating this one separately from the other Kafir redirects (see: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 June 30#Non-Muslim). I think this is vague, especially because disbeliever isn't equivalent to Kafir (you can be a disbeliever in a lot of different things, for example). -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak retarget to faith given the implied religious context, i.e. a "believer" is someone who is part of a religion or believes in a deity or particular belief system, contrasted with a disbeliever who is anyone who doesn't. The usage is certainly not limited to Islam. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:43, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak retarget to Infidel, which seems like a close enough synonym. Unbeliever redirects there as well. Interestingly, "disbeliever" is only used there in an Islamic context. But again, synonyms. --BDD (talk) 22:50, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's better than mine. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:57, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unbeliever→ Infidel (let's face it any fule kno that means unfaithful, literally). "Dis-" according to my old OED says that it is a prefix having privative force, i.e. removal rather than nonexistence, so this is WP:RFD#D5 nonsense on those linguistic grounds. Si Trew (talk) 00:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Belief as a {{R from antonym}} of believer -- this is not an Islamic topic, nor is it even a religious topic, since belief does not require religion, as you can believe in a project, a lucky charm, etc. and disbelievers do not believe in the that. -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 05:23, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per 70.51. That seems a good call. I think tagging with {{R from opposite}} (or {{R from antonym}}) would be excessive if we did. Si Trew (talk) 09:19, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Disbelief is a German heavy metal band, with a hatnote to Wiktionary: we'd probably need to change the hatnote when we get consensus. Si Trew (talk) 09:22, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Actually, we have Nonbeliever as an article. That may be better yet. ("Shun the nonbeliever!") --BDD (talk) 13:17, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Non-believer redirects there. Si Trew (talk) 20:30, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's rather a stub, though, but when we get consensus we should add all of the them to {{Irreligion sidebar}}. I disagree that just not believing in something is the same thing as actively rejecting the belief in that thing, which is why "dis-" and "un-" (or "ir-") mean different things. F'rexample, to be disinterested (having no bias, no vested interest) and uninterested (bored) are different things. 20:26, 1 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonTrew (talk • contribs)

• Ooh, nonbeliever looks very much to me like someone's original research and somewhat lacking in neutrality. I'm with Si that there's a difference between lack of belief vs. active rejection of belief, which is why we have agnostic vs. atheist. This may be getting off-topic. Perhaps retargeting to the believer dab page is best. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:32, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Just to clarify my position for the closer, I prefer a retarget to Infidel or Nonbeliever (perhaps they should be merged, but that doesn't matter here). I oppose retargeting to the dab Believer, because the only topic there that this could be relevant to is Belief. --BDD (talk) 13:51, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. (@BDD: Thanks for making it official so I can just glance the page and know there is consensus to delete.) Deryck C. 10:49, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Skulblaka → Dragon  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Octapsida → Dragon  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Neither are mentioned at the target. I'm not sure if these are examples of particular dragons but with no context in the target article these should be deleted. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "Skulblaka" seems to be the word for "dragon" in the Inheritance Cycle, but it's not mentioned there. "Octapsida" might be nonsense—Google is only returning Wikipedia mirrors. --BDD (talk) 19:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that skulblaka was created with the edit summary "Feel free to delete this if you want". However it was created right around the time that the film adaptation of one of the Inheritance Cycle novels was released, so that's probably relevant. But if it's not mentioned somewhere then it's probably not worth keeping. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:46, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I had forgotten all about this. I was only 16 years old when I made that redirect page in March 2007. But it's true, "Skulblaka" does mean "dragon" (literally "scale flapper") in the Ancient Language of The Inheritance Cycle. See here. Yes, you can delete "Skulblaka" if you want, even as a redirect. But might I offer a different solution? Have it redirect to The Inheritance Cycle instead of Dragon. I mean, anyone who types searching for Skulblaka on Wikipedia is probably already going to know what it is and means. Dogman15 (talk) 03:37, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, Dogman15, and that's the problem. Since "skulblaka" isn't explained or mentioned at The Inheritance Cycle, it would only be of use to people who already know about the cycle (and thus would know how to get to the page anyway). Anyone looking to figure out what "skulblaka" means (who didn't already know) would be disappointed. --BDD (talk) 13:13, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(You don't really have to link my name and alert me. I'll check this page regularly.) So what would you like to do? Do we take into consideration people who are using Wikipedia instead of Google for some reason to find out what a strange word means? I don't see how anyone would learn about the existence of the word skulblaka without knowing about the Inheritance Cycle. Dogman15 (talk) 18:15, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? Google can be a hodgepodge of results, while we're often fairly reliable if someone's trying to learn about a new concept. How would someone know "skulblaka" without knowing about the Inheritance Cycle? I don't know. Maybe they see it in fan fiction, or they see someone use it as a screen name. But more importantly, I think we're agreeing that most users searching for this term do know what the Inheritance Cycle is. So the redirect isn't adding anything for them. --BDD (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not an Inheritance Cycle encyclopedia. General topics should not have incoming redirects from Inheritance Cycle fake words. WP:NOTDIC Wikipedia is not an Inheritance Cycle translation dictionary -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 05:27, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment if Skulblaka is to be retargeted to the Inheritance Cycle, then something should be written there about it, otherwise this is harmful because a user who sees this word and doesn't know the context will be WP:SURPRISEd by this result. Users such as myself. However I think that such an addition would be WP:TRIVIA unless it's a fairly significant plot point, and it doesn't appear to be judging by this discussion. To contrast, we have a redirect uruloki (a word for a fire-breathing dragon in the Tolkien legendarium) which targets a detailed article about Middle-Earth dragons, as opposed to an article about the work in which they appear but doesn't discuss them at all. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:43, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I don't even care what happens to the page anymore. This was eight years ago when I was a novice at editing and policies. Have fun duking it out, guys. ;) Dogman15 (talk) 18:25, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I think this is clear from my comments above, but just to make it official. --BDD (talk) 14:31, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 13:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 勞工貴族 → Labor aristocracy  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. Not a Chinese topic. Gorobay (talk) 18:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete as unopposed. Deryck C. 10:45, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Star Trek: Continuum → Star Trek  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Star Trek Continuum → Star Trek#External links  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

It looks like this could refer to a few things. Retargeting to Star Trek: The Q Continuum would be an improvement but seems imperfect. Q Continuum itself redirects to Q (Star Trek), which doesn't seem a good target. There's always deletion. --BDD (talk) 15:49, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - seems to be a mod for the remake of Homeworld 2, although not mentioned on the game's page. It's not related to Q; probably best to delete since there are many things in the Star Trek universe that "continuum" could refer to. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Deryck C. 10:45, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Sonic shower → Star Trek  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

WP:NOTWIKIA; not mentioned in the target article or anywhere else. BDD (talk) 15:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - WP:TRIVIA. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:46, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment sonic showers are not the exclusive purview of Star Trek, it appears in other fiction as well, so the target is inappropriate -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 06:18, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Deryck C. 10:43, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• List of Star Trek writers → Star Trek  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• List of Star Trek script writers → Star Trek  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This was a list until December; the target article names a few Star Trek writers, of course, but not most. And I don't think we have such a dedicated list anywhere else. Delete or restore? --BDD (talk) 15:44, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, I have to say. Worth noting that list of Star Trek script writers is {{R from page move}} to list of Star Trek writers. Other lists of this sort are redirected to lists of episodes by series (List of Star Trek episodes, List of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episodes, etc.) which list writers, but this list's inclusion criteria covers the entire franchise. Thus it would not be possible to choose a target, therefore delete. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I can't think of a suitable place for them to redirect to per Ivanvector above. Miyagawa (talk) 12:07, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus between retargeting and deleting, default to delete. Although I do note, not in an admin capacity, that the confusion behind this discussion comes from the general ambiguity as to whether vibrate mode is a subset of silent mode. Deryck C. 10:42, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 📳 → Silent mode  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Seems to me to be better suited to Vibrating alert. Also looks different depending on font, and I'm not sure what that version is supposed to represent. Adam9007 (talk) 15:14, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per nom. This one is called VIBRATION MODE. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per IvanVector -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 06:19, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• This looks like a heart over a cell phone to me. Doesn't suggest vibrating at all. Ambiguous emoji to me means delete. --BDD (talk) 13:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per BDD and WP:RFD#D2 due to the potential for confusion. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:59, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was retarget to Screaming (music) as {{R from antonym}}, without prejudice against restoration of article. Deryck C. 10:58, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Clean vocals → Singing  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This was formerly an article before it was PRODded and redirected. Now it's what I call a condescending redirect—a reader searching for "Clean vocals" almost certainly knows what singing is, and the more specific subject isn't mentioned at all in that article. BDD (talk) 14:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Screaming (music) as {{R from opposite}}, which mentions the term in the context of metalcore music. It's also the target of unclean vocals. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a complementary redirect from unclean vocals. Just as screaming ≈ unclean vocals, singing ≈ clean vocals. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:06, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But if the phrase is only ever (or mostly) used in the context of certain genres of music, shouldn't it go to a more specific article? It would be worth giving it some attention in the screaming article. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to do that, then go for it. At the moment, it might be better off to have it deleted because it isn't mentioned at either place. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:36, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe death growl is better? It mentions "unclean vocals" as a bolded alternate name right in the lede, although unclean vocals does not redirect there. "Clean vocals" is mentioned in the metalcore section of the screaming article, too. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:08, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore and clean-up. We have an article staring us in the face. Let's improve it instead of deleting it. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That would work too. It was PRODded a few years back but it seems like something we could write about. I'll leave a note at WP:METAL, although the project seems to be not very active. In the meantime, since "clean vocals" is actually littered throughout screaming (music), I added a blurb about it to the lede. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:28, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was retarget to Ministry of Social Affairs, which does seem to satistfy everybody's suggestions. Deryck C. 10:38, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Social affairs → Social work  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Social Affairs → Social work  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I recently fulfilled a WP:AFC/R request from 88Connor88 to redirect Social Affairs to Social work. I did so, but I think both of these would be better off retargeted to Social issue, since "affair" has a political connotation. Compare to International affairs, which redirects to International relations. --BDD (talk) 15:30, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to DAB. We have at Minister of Social Affairs but that → List of health departments and ministries. We also have (which are not listed on that list, nor any other ministers or ministrys):

• Minister of Social Affairs (France)
• Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment (Netherlands)
• Ministry of Social Affairs (Denmark)
• Ministry of antisocial affairs (my missus)

It's a start. Si Trew (talk) 19:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good argument for dabifying Minister of Social Affairs, Ministry of Social Affairs, or a similar title. Those could be referred to simply as "Social Affairs", I suppose, but a page with that title that just lists ministries would be at least a bit ASTONISHing. --BDD (talk) 19:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate this can also refer to the social life of a person (their social affairs, with a private social secretary to manage it if they're socialites) -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 05:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"What have you done?" cried Christine

You've wrecked the whole party machine!

To lie in the nude

Could be considered rude

But to lie in the House is obscene!

• Comment as you see above, I WP:BOLDLY retargeted Minister of Social Affairs to Ministry of Social Affairs. The rub is, that most socialites are not socialists. Si Trew (talk) 09:28, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Ministry of Social Affairs which is sort of the same as Si Trew's idea. My impression from the internet is that "social affairs" is a European equivalent to what we call "social development" in Canada, and both are almost entirely within the context of government services, so might as well target the Ministry itself (or its dab page, in this case). "Social work" is not quite the same. I'm not sure what you call it in the U.S., "social security" is close, or Department of Why Should I Have To Pay For My Neighbour's Health Insurance or some such. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:59, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per Ivan. We could also consider adding social issue in the see also section. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:24, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 13:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Floweredy → Flower  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Flowerdy → Flower  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

I am doubting the usefulness of this redirect. A Google search reveals less than 1,000 ghits and I can't find a single notable usage of the term. I highly doubt someone searching for this will want to be taken to a general article on flowers. It's not mentioned at the targeted article and there are no incoming links. Delete as we are not a dictionary. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I just added Flowerdy to the discussion. The stats mentioned in the rationale only apply to Floweredy. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I'm not sure what you mean by notable usage; Wikipedia's guidelines on nobility relate to topic coverage and are not relevant to this discussion. A Google Books search reveals plenty of hits for both of these spellings of the term, used grammatically and in appropriate context. This is a valid word, just like Floral, and both are appropriate redirects to the Flower article. Neelix (talk) 19:21, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't mean notable in the WP:NOTABLE (wiki-legal) sense, I mean it literally as in: "worthy of note." Also, this is a much different word than "floral." Floral is used 35 times at Flower whereas the words that I nominated aren't used at all. It's a very obscure word, a Google books search only gave me 126 results (which includes forms like Flower Edy). WP:RFD#D8 would apply here. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:03, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I was wondering whether Flowerdew was a possible retarget. But resonance with Cowardly , and that cowards (dissenters) in wars are often given (and made to wear) white flowers, also put me off that suggestion. Si Trew (talk) 22:52, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well I picked a beautiful pink rose today, to put in my buttonhole, so the world is at peace, now. Si Trew (talk) 22:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, now I recall my irrelevance. Bob Flowerdew is a presenter on Gardener's Question Time. Whether that is useful or not I don't know but that was going through me head for three days now. Si Trew (talk) 15:14, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Neelix. I was surprised to find when I searched this that it is in fact a synonym for "floral" or "flowery", as in a print or design. Not one I've heard before, but I'm not every dialect of English, now am I? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:33, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Not an especially strong consensus, but the lack of the term at the target article makes deletion seem reasonable. --BDD (talk) 13:42, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Tweenbrain → Diencephalon  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Very unlikely redirect. Not a standard or real term. I cannot find any results on Google scholar other than "Be-tween brain", where "-" is used for a new line.

Although listed on dictionary ([1]) this is a potentially frustrating redirect for readers, the majority of whom will expect something on adolescent development (See tween).

I propose deletion. Tom (LT) (talk) 09:55, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We discussed this one on Wiktionary too. It is a real term, though perhaps dated, and always seems to begin with an apostrophe, i.e. 'tweenbrain. A Google Books search finds some usage. Equinox (talk) 19:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Merriam Webster has it with a hyphen; this can be {{R from alternate hyphenation}} then. I doubt the potential for confusion but a hatnote would solve the issue. Ivanvector (talk) 22:00, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Conjoined twins maybe, but the apos at the front (not listed here 'TweenBrain) which is how it supposedly is written, makes it WP:RFD#D2 confusing. For if not, Teenager serves: In-between is no good but this is a WP:ABBR as diaphresis. Si Trew (talk) 23:05, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well old bean where is the hyphen? Webster link is essentially a redlink that says "What made you look up tween-brain". {{R from other punctuation}} possibly, but I think it would be bad to set a precedent that apostrophes are acceptable in English Wikipedia. (They're very common at the starts of words in Dutch language, particularly 't "the"). Si Trew (talk) 09:28, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By the way it should be biencephalon. Di- is Latin, Bi- Greek. We don't have the stub noun, and WP:RFOREIGN, WP:NOTENGLISH. Si Trew (talk) 09:33, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Am I a liar? When this was listed it had apos at the front ''Tweenbrain: or was that another listing? I don't mind being wrong but I'm an idiot if I am arguing the wrong thing. Now, don't mess with Mr. In-Between.(Roy Fox and his Orchestra). Si Trew (talk) 09:37, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, confusing. My first thought was that it referred to the brain of a Tween (preadolescence). Since it's not well defined at either place, we might find some confusion. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete'. Sorry, I messed with Mr. In-Between. Wonderful song. Sung I think on covers by fred who didn't do it well, and by wossname, Bing Crosby he did it nice. But I spent twenty years studying the piano before I said, yep, that's definitely a piano. Si Trew (talk) 15:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't notice what appears to be Si's reply to my !vote above, but it's "alternate hyphenation" because there's a hyphen in once instance versus none in the other. Alternate hyphenation doesn't have to be a space. I reiterate that this is a defined medical term for this brain structure, thus the redirect goes where it should. I still doubt the likelihood of confusion, but if we must, then hatnote: Tweenbrain redirects here. For the thought processes of preadolescent humans, see Justin Bieber. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:04, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus between keep and delete, default to keep. Deryck C. 10:35, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 🎱 → Cue sports  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I'm not entirely sure about this, but depending on the font used, I think this could refer specifically to Eight-ball. Maybe disambiguate? Adam9007 (talk) 03:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - this one is called BILLIARDS; our billiards already targets cue sports. This renders as the eight-ball on certain systems but I think that is not a distinct enough topic that we would need to disambiguate. I suppose we could do "🎱, which sometimes renders as a picture of an eight-ball, redirects here. For other uses, see eight-ball (disambiguation)" but this would be the first emoji hatnote that I know of. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:51, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete You've seen my position on emojis—especially where there's ambiguity, just throw them out. Rack (billiards) is the first thing I thought of when I saw this. Maybe it's cue sports broadly, maybe it's an eight ball... maybe this will cause more confusion than it will resolve. --BDD (talk) 18:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ir also looked closer to the image on the rack article when I used Chrome on my PC with Windows 7.--69.157.254.210 (talk) 04:48, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep "billiards" [2][3] -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 05:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per BDD. This could be rack (billiards) and it could be eight-ball. Either way, someone's going to be confused. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:06, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was default to delete as there is consensus to change but no consensus of outcome. Deryck C. 10:32, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 🏣 → Post office  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I don't think this refers to just any Post Office, but specifically Japanese ones (and possibly other East Asian ones, but I'm not sure, Japanese certainly). According to this (it is the same character; it may look different depending on the font used), this is the case. Maybe retarget to Japan Post, or Japanese postal mark, as this redirect (which looks just like this emoji) does? Adam9007 (talk) 02:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:RFD#D8. I doubt that anyone use a symbol to look up info one the post office let alone a foreign one.--69.157.254.210 (talk) 04:20, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case, we'd have to delete all the other emoji redirects (of which there are plenty) too. Some have been nominated for deletion and were kept. Adam9007 (talk) 15:04, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Japanese postal mark as a more specific target. This always renders either as the Japan Post icon, or a building with this icon on the front, depending on the system. Also, this emoji is called JAPANESE POST OFFICE. The other, at 〒, is just called POSTAL MARK but looks to me to be the same thing. Note also that there is 🏤 EUROPEAN POST OFFICE though it doesn't render on my system. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Comment -- this looks like a box-drawing character to me. Eman235/talk 21:14, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to ╤, yeah. That character is BOX DRAWINGS DOWN SINGLE AND HORIZONTAL DOUBLE. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:24, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • • It look similar, but it's not the same. ╤ is a box drawing character, 〒 is a (Japanese) postal mark, and 🏣 (as I see it) is the same mark, but means Japanese Post Office (its appearance depends on the system). Adam9007 (talk) 23:44, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I think it's been adequately demonstrated in this discussion that this symbol is ambiguous. Japanese postal mark gives a good explanation of it, but a reader could also be interpreting it as a box-drawing character, and if their system is rendering it as a building, the intent is murkier still. --BDD (talk) 13:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Japanese postal mark, where the symbol is explained. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:08, 16 July 2015 (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.