This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all
disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the
project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the
discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Oppose: no evidence that the hair is more likely to be looked for in Wikipedia than all the many other uses put together.
PamD09:09, 25 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Support - I see a bird, a film, a musical, and a bunch of partial title matches. The long-term educational value of red-headed people exceeds the other topics by a significant amount.
Red Slash17:04, 25 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Oppose – We can improve the disambig page instead: I placed the main definition on top and organized the others in sections. —
JFGtalk22:06, 27 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Because the word "redhead" is essentially a
dictionary definition. Readers who actually want to learn more about red hair genetics and folklore are one click away from the fountain of knowledge. Readers who want to enquire about one of the myriad things called "redhead" have a well-structured disambig page to swiftly find their target topic. Note that "redhead" designates a person who happens to have red hair, whereas the "Red hair" article talks about hair that happens to be red. Splitting hairs, it looks incorrect that under your proposal "Redhead" (person) would be equated to "Red hair" (physical attribute). —
JFGtalk05:18, 2 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Support. Redhead commonly means someone with red hair, and I don't see that any of the other topics on the dab page approach that in terms of notability or long term significance. It's a primary redirect. —
Amakuru (
talk)
20:58, 3 July 2016 (UTC)reply
@
Amakuru and
Anarchyte: Shouldn't the encyclopedia distinguish people from their hair color? I would agree with the redirect if we had a distinct page for redheads vs red hair, subjects which are currently conflated in the "Red hair" article. A new "Redhead" article about red-haired people, historical figures and prejudice could be split form section 5 of the current "Red hair" article. —
JFGtalk08:54, 4 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Support. Nothing on the dab page sticks out to me, I think the majority of people searching for "readhead" would be after the information found at the the
red hair article.
Jenks24 (
talk)
11:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all
disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the
project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the
discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Oppose: no evidence that the hair is more likely to be looked for in Wikipedia than all the many other uses put together.
PamD09:09, 25 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Support - I see a bird, a film, a musical, and a bunch of partial title matches. The long-term educational value of red-headed people exceeds the other topics by a significant amount.
Red Slash17:04, 25 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Oppose – We can improve the disambig page instead: I placed the main definition on top and organized the others in sections. —
JFGtalk22:06, 27 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Because the word "redhead" is essentially a
dictionary definition. Readers who actually want to learn more about red hair genetics and folklore are one click away from the fountain of knowledge. Readers who want to enquire about one of the myriad things called "redhead" have a well-structured disambig page to swiftly find their target topic. Note that "redhead" designates a person who happens to have red hair, whereas the "Red hair" article talks about hair that happens to be red. Splitting hairs, it looks incorrect that under your proposal "Redhead" (person) would be equated to "Red hair" (physical attribute). —
JFGtalk05:18, 2 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Support. Redhead commonly means someone with red hair, and I don't see that any of the other topics on the dab page approach that in terms of notability or long term significance. It's a primary redirect. —
Amakuru (
talk)
20:58, 3 July 2016 (UTC)reply
@
Amakuru and
Anarchyte: Shouldn't the encyclopedia distinguish people from their hair color? I would agree with the redirect if we had a distinct page for redheads vs red hair, subjects which are currently conflated in the "Red hair" article. A new "Redhead" article about red-haired people, historical figures and prejudice could be split form section 5 of the current "Red hair" article. —
JFGtalk08:54, 4 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Support. Nothing on the dab page sticks out to me, I think the majority of people searching for "readhead" would be after the information found at the the
red hair article.
Jenks24 (
talk)
11:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.