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) 16:10, 30 May 2014 (UTC) reply

• Windows 92 → Windows 3.1x ( links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ delete ] 
• Windows 85 → Windows 1.0  ( links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ delete ]
• Microsoft 95 → Windows 95  ( links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ delete ]

Not an actual name for the subject, not discussed in the target article, implausible search term. � ( talk) 17:46, 23 May 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep Windows 85 and Windows 92, but Delete Microsoft 95. The first two match the naming scheme that Microsoft used for their Windows product (starting with Windows 95, and ending with Windows 2000), and thus could be useful. (I note that Windows 2009 redirects to Windows 7, and Windows 2007 redirects to Windows Vista.) However, Microsoft 95 could refer to a multitude of items, including Microsoft itself, and thus is to vague to be useful. Steel1943 ( talk) 18:37, 23 May 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete as creative inventions unused to refer to Windows. And Windows only used this schema for four editions (95,98,2000,2003), so is not indicative of standard Windows naming. It is not like Win8/8.1,NT,Win286,Win386. -- 65.94.171.126 ( talk) 06:25, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete per 65.94. Come off it, we have Windows Longhorn and so on as proper redirects. Si Trew ( talk) 11:26, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply
• Strong delete. Intrusive inventive names, invented after a patterns that appeared a decade later. (In other words, for these terms to become practically useful, one must be of a state of mind that can easily remember the release date of these Windows versions but have an excruciatingly thought time remember their name or chronological release order – which would be strange, because he who knows the date can deduce these as well.) Also delete Windows 2007 and Windows 2009. Best regards, Codename Lisa ( talk) 22:21, 24 May 2014 (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. It looks like I'm the only one left advocating anything else, so consider my vote changed or withdrawn and we'll call it unanimous. -- BDD ( talk) 16:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Small-Town America → United States ( links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ delete ] The ChampionMan 1234 07:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC) reply
• As a first stab, suggesting Redirect to Main Street. This mentions "small-town America" several times though does not define it. I suggest it to give others a springboard. Hungarian: Főutca (Fő, principal + "utca", street), in the cap of the first pic there, needs the diacritical mark on the first: these are distinct letters not just helping hands as they are in e.g. Spanish or French, and "Foutca" without the accent makes no sense. I'll change that since it's tangential to this discussion. Si Trew ( talk) 07:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete not covered in target article, WP:REDLINK -- 65.94.171.206 ( talk) 04:38, 7 May 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete per 65.94. One would think there should be an article, but since there isn't, a redlink is better. Si Trew ( talk) 04:36, 12 May 2014 (UTC) reply
• Retarget to Middle America (United States). Pinging TheChampionMan1234 and SimonTrew on this. These are very similar, maybe even identical concepts. A key phrase at the target article is "contrasted to the more metropolitan areas." Mentioning this phrase as a synonym there would be good. -- BDD ( talk) 16:34, 13 May 2014 (UTC) reply
• Retarget per BDD. That's not perfect, it's not mentioned at the target , but it is better.
• Retarget but to Town#United States.

To elaborate (what else would you expect from me): In Middle America there is a piped link from "small town" (no hyphen) to Small-town#United States) but Small-town itself is a redirect to Town (but not marked as {{ R to section}}: that's easily fixed once we get consensus) so this ends up at Town#United States). Personally I am against piped links to redirects and especially to Rs to sections because the links can break so easily: as I have just shown. It has been argued against me before (a long while ago, on the redirect discussion for Botanic gardens vs. Botanical gardens) that this pattern of piping to a redirect to a section is WP:NOTBROKEN, but patently it is broken: either redirect to the section then you don't need the section in the pipe, or pipe it to the section in the article but not to the redirect: don't do both. They are fragile since "What links here" does not monitor pipes or redirects to sections but only to the pages themselves (hence the advice for courtesy comments at MOS:LINK2SECT). Si Trew ( talk) 08:58, 19 May 2014 (UTC) reply

• "What links here" for the dozen or so other uses of the redirect Small-town (Portals for South Park characters, and a couple of references to that "small-town" feel in a place in California etc) suggest this is a better target. But I am with BDD it is a close-run thing and the concepts are probably nearly identical. However, retargeting it to Middle America (United States) essentially takes us through an enormous loop. Si Trew ( talk) 09:20, 19 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD ( talk) 16:43, 23 May 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Too many options, none specifically related to this title enough to qualify. Best option is to delete this thing. Steel1943 ( talk) 18:47, 23 May 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete. per Steel1943, I's a common enough term (at least in British English, I have no idea if it is common in American English) that one should think it should go somewhere; but the bind is, where? So delete it and let the search engine take care of it; I am not delighted about that but it seems the best of a bad job. I tried to think of British analogies such as Home Counties or Ruritania or Little Englander but none quite equate (not, of course, to suggest redirecting to any of those but as analogues); Little Britain of course means something completely different. I thought – and please correct me – it was also used as a political term to mean people who tend to vote for the Republican party (United States) and so on": "Right-thinking American people". So it is incredibly ambiguous. I think Steel1943 is right: delete it and leave it to the search engine. Si Trew ( talk) 10:52, 24 May 2014 (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 both. EdJohnston ( talk) 22:11, 6 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Μοναχός → Monasticism ( links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ delete ]
• Monachos → Monasticism  ( links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ delete ] 

Delete. Not especially Greek. Gorobay ( talk) 20:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete generic topic with no particular affinity for Greek. WP:NOT a translation dictionary. -- 65.94.171.126 ( talk) 04:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC) reply

• delete first, keep second "Monachos" is in fact seen as a technical word for "monk" in early church and Eastern Orthodox literature. Mangoe ( talk) 12:07, 20 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD ( talk) 16:40, 23 May 2014 (UTC) reply

• Tough call. The term is mentioned at the target page, but only in the context of etymology. Eastern Christian monasticism would seem to be a better target, though they're not mentioned there. I think the same thing should happen to both redirects, however. It doesn't make sense to me to delete the Greek form but not its transliteration. -- BDD ( talk) 16:42, 23 May 2014 (UTC) reply
• Comment. Although incorrect etymologocially, I was wondering of Monarchy would be a better target. I held off saying so but now it has been relisted I bung in. Si Trew ( talk) 18:30, 23 May 2014 (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) 16:09, 30 May 2014 (UTC) reply

• Μελαγχολία → Melancholia ( links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ delete ] 

Delete. Not especially Greek. Gorobay ( talk) 20:20, 15 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete per Gorobay. Latin I think anyway. Like the old greengrocers' song, "Come to me my melon, caulie baby". Si Trew ( talk) 00:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete Greeks are not the only people who suffer from melancholy. This generic topic has no particular affinity for Greek. WP:NOT a translation dictionary. -- 65.94.171.126 ( talk) 04:50, 16 May 2014 (UTC) reply
• Comment actually I am in two minds about this... It is Greek etymologically for black bile which redirects there, but as Gorobay says it is not especially Greek. Melancholy also redirects there: which I would imagine is the more likely search term in English but the article stands at Melancholia and I imagine that was by consensus. By the way I and another editor created {{ ety}} a few years ago but it seems that is very lightly used, unfortunately. I am disappointed nobody groaned at my pun, though. Alan Bennett says somewhere in his diaries "people who groan at puns either wish they thought of it or have seen it coming and had time to duck": but a good groan would have cheered me up a bit – I am a bit melancholic myself unfortunately but I will get over it in a day or two. Si Trew ( talk) 10:19, 16 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Hmm. To add to the confusion we do have an article for the song My Melancholy Baby which as you see is spelled with the -y and not the -ia. That is not a contradiction, songs should have their proper titles, but does it not indicate that the title should be melancholy with the redirect at melancholia (i.e. reverse the redirect)? But on the other hand it is quite a technical article and perhaps it is all best left where it stands. Si Trew ( talk) 10:23, 16 May 2014 (UTC) reply

I think you're right. -- BDD ( talk) 16:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD ( talk) 16:39, 23 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment Oddly enough BBC Radio 4 had a programme on this morning – I didn't hear it I was napping but it is [ [1]] – which is named "Melencolia". I doubt this is a pun, R4 does like to do pun things but I think that unlikely. Do we have a third spelling then? 84.236.37.246 ( talk) 23:07, 27 May 2014 (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) 16:08, 30 May 2014 (UTC) reply

• Cadmium(I) hydride → Cadmium hydride ( links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ delete ] 

Cadmium(I) hydride is a different compound CdH, while Cadmium hydride is CdH2 Jsjsjs1111 ( talk) 15:57, 23 May 2014 (UTC) reply

• delete, its a different chemical, if it exist at all. Christian75 ( talk)
• Delete Per Christian75. I will look up CdH(I) and maybe do a drawing if it exists. I would think it would be rather unstable if it does exist. Declaration of interest: I used to work for Accelrys, doing molecular modelling. Si Trew ( talk) 18:40, 23 May 2014 (UTC) reply
• Doesn't seem to exist, at least as a common term. Si Trew ( talk) 19:37, 23 May 2014 (UTC) reply

• I am not very sure about this, apparently CAS No. 13966-61-5 seems to be CdH, however googling only returns 17 results.-- Jsjsjs1111 ( talk) 00:00, 25 May 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom -- Lenticel ^{( talk)} 04:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

I did find this cite but don't have the subscription:

• Hüttner, W. (2012). "Diamagnetic Diatomic Molecules. Part 1". Springer Verlag. doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-69954-5_157. ISBN  978-3-540-69954-5. {{ cite journal}}: |chapter= ignored ( help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= ( help); Cite journal requires |journal= ( help)

It's not clear to me from that if it is CdH₂ or CdH(I) since I can't access the text without a subscription. But it does just say "Cadmium hydride" not "Cadmium(II) hydride" and the brief doesn't say Cd₂ nor Cd(II). Is that any help or hindrance? Si Trew ( talk) 11:18, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

I found a CID 57459443 from PubChem, however it is CdH^- there.-- Jsjsjs1111 ( talk) 07:42, 27 May 2014 (UTC) reply

@ Jsjsjs1111:, I have edited to bold the hyphen sup just cos it is very indistinct on my screen: not to change your comment as such but to aid the discussion. So what would that be, a CdH with a missing electron? Si Trew editing as IP. 84.236.37.246 ( talk) 23:23, 27 May 2014 (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) 16:06, 30 May 2014 (UTC) reply

• BWA World Three-cushion Championship → Billiards World Cup Association ( links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ delete ] 

Deletion. There hasn't been a "BWA World Championships" at all. In fact between 1988 and 1991 the UMB didn't organize world championships and the winners of the Three-Cushion World Cup were nominated instead. So the redirect has the wrong name/term. LezFraniak ( talk) 13:21, 23 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment. Can you expand your argument? I thought the BWA also looked after amateur snooker and so forth. I could be totally wrong there. Singluar There hasn't been a BWA, not plural... but that's a side point. I am missing the point somewhere here. Si Trew ( talk) 19:57, 23 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment. Only the UMB (World association) is organizing world championships. The BWA (organizes only 3-cushion tournaments with Pro's) was a sub-assotiation of the UMB by that time. and like I explained above there were just 4 years where the UMB didn't organize World Champinships and they (UMB) nominated the winner of the World Cup as World Chanmpions. When you look into the article, you will see that there were a few World Cups held during these years. (88–91), and the overall-winner became World Champion. So you simply can't mix "BWA" with "World Champion(ships"). Hope it makes it more clear. Sorry for my english, no native speaker. -- LezFraniak ( talk) 20:25, 23 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Please excuse me because I am English but live in Hungary: it is nice to see the World Snooker Championships broadcast here. You are obviously the expert here: but billiards and snooker are and pool are different things, but in Hungarian have the same word "billiard". What do you want done with it? Si Trew ( talk) 20:47, 23 May 2014 (UTC) reply

What do you mean? -- LezFraniak ( talk) 21:05, 23 May 2014 (UTC) reply

I didn't express it clearly. Is this specifically billiards or table games generally? I have just been brushing the pool table down at the pub, and in Hungary it is called "billiard" just genera lly for a table game – and the same in French – so we need to make that clear. Bar billiards for example. Si Trew ( talk) 22:01, 23 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Your questions are not pointing to my request, right? They're personally?! Just short: it' Carom billiards. No holes. If you are interested, read the corrosponding articles 4 more info. Billiards ist the Main Word for all Ball Games on tables. Russian Billiards, Pool, snooker, English Billiards, 5-pins, Artistique etc. Sorry for The autocorrection on my iPad! -- LezFraniak ( talk) 22:14, 23 May 2014 (UTC) reply

@ LezFraniak: I think e are going past each other. Don't worry about the typos/autocorrection. That was exactly my point: in many languages billiards means any game played with balls on a slate/baize table: in England it is a specific game played with two cue balls, one for each player, and one red ball. For example, the Betting and Gaming Act 1960, as revised but for which we haven't a specific article unfortunely, used to have to be displayed in summary in every pub in England, and allowed six specific games (" Cribbage, Darts, Pool, Bar billiards, Shove-halfpenny and Dominoes" to be "played for small stakes on those parts of the premises open to the public". In particular for example you could play pool but not snooker. (It also said that "Betting and the passing of betting slips is prohibited": and if that ain't poetry I don't know what is: this is basically down to the off-course betting for which we don't seem to have an R although it is mentioned in the lede). So you could play bar billiards or pool but not snooker, for example. I was wondering how we make that clear and you may have some views on that. Si Trew ( talk) 06:50, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

And no, it's not personal. I am asking for your expert advice. Si Trew ( talk) 07:10, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

I created the R for off-course betting. It's in the first sentence of the lede as the British name for it. Si Trew ( talk) 09:48, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Incidentally "on those parts of the premises open to the public" was there to discourage gambling for large stakes in the "back room". I really must one day make an article about this Act. I have been encouraged before to start creating bookmaking articles but I lack RS usually; which makes it tricky for me to create the articles. I should like to have nice pictures and create an article for Tic-Tac, I must be one of the few who sill do it; most use mobile phones and I can still do Tic-Tac. Si Trew ( talk) 11:46, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Wow, Tic-tac has been created. I don't know how I can improve it without pics, though. Si Trew ( talk) 13:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC) reply

• that redirect does not make sense, as was explained above by LezFraniak. delete.-- Poupou l'quourouce ( talk) 19:04, 29 May 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete. World cup and world championship are different things, so this redirect is wrong. -- Theghaz ( talk) 20:25, 29 May 2014 (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) 16:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC) reply

• Glorified construction worker → Civil engineer ( links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ delete ] 

Inappropriate redirect. No incoming links. jonkerz ♠ talk 10:14, 23 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Seems inappropriate. See here for example by analogy (in the sense of Boring (earth)):

• "The Day Engineers Ceased to be Boring". improbable.com. Associated Press. 22 August 1996. Retrieved 23 May 2014.

That is probably not RS but the AP will be so I am sure we can find a better reference for the same thing. The Institution of Civil Engineers are perhaps a bit overprotective, though, but then I am just a very uncivil engineer. Si Trew ( talk) 10:51, 23 May 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete. This redirect's existence is a violation of WP:NEUTRAL. Steel1943 ( talk) 18:43, 23 May 2014 (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 by non-admin, but with consensus. Si Trew ( talk) 07:23, 24 May 2014 (UTC)} reply

• That thing they did after voyager → Star Trek: Enterprise ( links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ delete ] 

Inappropriate redirect. No incoming links. jonkerz ♠ talk 10:13, 23 May 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete per jonkerz. We don't have that planet between Mars and Saturn, for example. Si Trew ( talk) 10:55, 23 May 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete. The term "they" could refer to anyone; the pronouns's context is not clear. And also, this redirect's title has several other inherent issues. Steel1943 ( talk) 19:14, 23 May 2014 (UTC) reply

No, no, "They" refers to a group of people you specifically dislike. See Orwell. Si Trew ( talk) 20:07, 23 May 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete as a very vague redirect -- Lenticel ^{( talk)} 04:48, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete not about the flagship NASA mission after Voyager; nor is it about the Scaled Composite aircraft after Voyager. So highly ambiguous -- 65.94.171.126 ( talk) 06:28, 24 May 2014 (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) 16:03, 30 May 2014 (UTC) reply

• Template:Republic of China infobox → Taiwan ( links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ delete ] 
• Template:Taiwan infobox → Taiwan ( links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ delete ] 

Appears to be a copy of the infobox we already have at Taiwan/Republic of China, unnecessary CNR The ChampionMan 1234 01:11, 23 May 2014 (UTC) reply

• If you don't mind, I'll add Template:Taiwan infobox to this nomination, as it's the same issue. -- BDD ( talk) 16:38, 23 May 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete all. I cannot wait for the day someone tries to transclude one of these redirects. Oh, the hilarity that will ensue due to transcluding the ENTIRE Taiwan article. I'm laughing as I type this. Steel1943 ( talk) 18:41, 23 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment I hear the laugh and am glad to hear it. Si Trew ( talk) 22:35, 23 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Laughing at myself.' You know it will end up being me taking the sodding things out? (Chuckles) Si Trew ( talk) 22:41, 23 May 2014 (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) 16:03, 30 May 2014 (UTC) reply

• 中華民国 → Taiwan ( links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ delete ] 

Although this is a foreign-language redirect, it is half in Simplified Chinese and half in Traditional Chinese, usually chinese people would only type in one script The ChampionMan 1234 01:07, 23 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment It is Japanese Shinjitai. -- Kusunose 04:25, 23 May 2014 (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) 16:01, 30 May 2014 (UTC) reply

• These aren't the Freuds you're looking for → Freud (disambiguation) ( links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ delete ]

Joke redirect created in 2012. Should be deleted. — Scott • talk 21:32, 23 May 2014 (UTC

• Jokes are OK not on articles but in discussions, at least in my opinion. It would be better to redirect it to to Sigmund Fraud or Fraud family or something like that, as a honey trap. I know you would think that misleading but it isn't, at WP:DYK I tempt readers in with acccurate but gainsaying trigs and get a lot of hits for misleading but accurate links. I am not saying we should do that at articles. Articles should be serious; discussions should be light: as editors we need a break too. Si Trew ( talk) 22:27, 23 May 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom, and others above. Steel1943 ( talk) 23:03, 23 May 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. It's much easier to make a piped link for jokes anyways.-- Lenticel ^{( talk)} 04:50, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom and Lenticel. That's true. I would never put a joke in article space. I just find the tone of Wikipedia sometimes too serious on its talk pages. If you look in most encyclopaedias or dictionaries there are a few jokes that have slipped past the editors – or been inserted by the editors – to lighten it a bit. Johnson's Dictionary certainly has a few.

I am not saying turn Wikipedia into a comic book: I am saying it's OK, in discussions, not to be so damned serious: part of my respect for other editors is that I have a joke with them. I wouldn't joke with people I don't care for. I have been told off for it, particularly by another editor to this discussion but I shall continue to do so: if other editors – especially admins with trigger-happy fingers – don't like it they can do the other thing; and the other editor closed a discussion down as admin with closing remarks telling me off for making jokes without the courtesy of perhaps saying on my talk page first? (And of course by doing so giving me no right of reply.) One reason I make jokes on discussion pages especially at RfD is that it seems actually to encourage debate and we get better consensus. The other reason is we should lighten up a bit: articles are serious and hard work, discussions can be a bit lighter

Let me make it plain. To abuse me and say "stop making jokes" is an abuse of admin rights. Have you seen how much checking and reffing I do here. Who is the one with courtesy and who is the one without? Si Trew ( talk) 07:36, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

There has been no "abuse" of any kind. Your understanding of "admin rights" is evidently still very poor, following on from when you attempted (and failed miserably) to have me desysopped for speedily closing a discussion.

I will repeat what I said earlier: your frequent, rambling, paragraph-long digressions - let us take as an example the story of how you enjoy rearranging the items on the shelves of Hungarian supermarkets - are completely irrelevant to these discussions and detract from our being able to get things done. RfD does not need a resident comedian. — Scott • talk 22:38, 24 May 2014 (UTC) reply

People have different styles. If you think I reamble, you should see the style at French or Hungarian wikipedia: A huge long ramble on many articles, which we tend to cut out on English Wikipedia. I said, the reason I ramble is that sometimes it gives other editors an idea how to do something better. To do so in an anecdotal rather than punch-you-in-face style is just a style. "Welcome to Wikipedia: the encyclopaedia anyone can edit unless they do so in a different way from anyone else". 84.236.37.246 ( talk) 08:49, 28 May 2014 (UTC) reply

The "polish" story, for example. Nowhere did I say it was in Hungary: and it wasn't, it was in England. Now, you have Polish and polish: Useful distinction there with the caps. You also have French polish and French Polish but not Polish Polish or Polish polish. We have American English and British English but not English Polish or Polish English.

In no way was I denigrating people from Poland: I was trying to point out what would be a useful distinction on the capitals. So, the (true) story was meant lightly, but the point was serious: because we were discussing a lot of {{R from alternate capitalization}}s at the time.

Similarly this one. If These aren't the Freuds you're looking for, who arethe Freuds they are looking for? Freud (surname) does not exist. Freud (disambiguation) is where it retargets. Others are suggesting deletion. How else should we come to consensus? I didn't believe it was a case of just putting a tick in the box but discussing things: and people have different styles of discussion, which is all to the good.

I don't see how we can do that without discussing, sometimes at length, the possibilities. 84.236.37.246 ( talk) 08:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete The nominator is quite right, I created this as a joke a few years ago, assuming that it was a) harmless, b) reasonably entertaining and c) unlikely to be discovered. Obviously I was wrong about c)! But now it's been discovered then clearly policy dictates it must be deleted. (It's not the sort of thing I would add now I'm a little older and wiser) -- LukeSurl ^{t c} 09:55, 28 May 2014 (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.