This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 14, 2015.
List of List of weapons
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 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.
Important works of higher classification (insects)
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 only place it is used is in
Timeline_of_entomology_–_1800–50, where it is in fact piped (as "important work of higher classification").
Considering all this, I'm inclined weakly to Delete as confusing (
WP:RFD#D2), since the target is not in fact an important work of higher classification (insects). Probably its use in the article should simply be unlinked (or the opinion presented as fact, without reference, in which it is used – "this was an important work of higher classification" – can be cut entirely).
Si Trew (
talk)
02:41, 15 February 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.
List of things in the Ender's Game series
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 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.
List of things which are neither production nor consumption
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.
However, having looked through this, the list given in that section does not appear in any shape or form, and most of the entries here appear nowhere in the whole book: indeed, the phrase "meaning making" (or "meaning-making" or other likely variant) is not present in the book. ("Meaningful difference" is quoted as a gloss for "value" (p. 2 and elsewhere); Sex and marriage are discussed a lot, and makeup a bit; chapter 2, "Current Directions in Exchange Theory", and Note 27 (p. 267) comes close to a definition. So I am not convinced this is the source of that list, and it may be pure
WP:SYNTHESIS: certainly looking at
Talk:Anthropological theories of value#The List, it appears so.
Si Trew (
talk)
08:32, 15 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom and because there is nothing more vague than "things." — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
UnitedStatesian (
talk •
contribs) 20:22, 15 February 2015
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.
People who were born in the year 1908
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.
Keep and refine target to
1908#Births. Per
WP:CLN, lists and categories should not be considered duplicated effort. We don't need to have this for any other years, but any reader searching for this term is undoubtedly looking for just such a list. Deleting this redirect does them a real disservice. --
BDD (
talk)
21:25, 15 February 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 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.
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 14, 2015.
List of List of weapons
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 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.
Important works of higher classification (insects)
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 only place it is used is in
Timeline_of_entomology_–_1800–50, where it is in fact piped (as "important work of higher classification").
Considering all this, I'm inclined weakly to Delete as confusing (
WP:RFD#D2), since the target is not in fact an important work of higher classification (insects). Probably its use in the article should simply be unlinked (or the opinion presented as fact, without reference, in which it is used – "this was an important work of higher classification" – can be cut entirely).
Si Trew (
talk)
02:41, 15 February 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.
List of things in the Ender's Game series
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 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.
List of things which are neither production nor consumption
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.
However, having looked through this, the list given in that section does not appear in any shape or form, and most of the entries here appear nowhere in the whole book: indeed, the phrase "meaning making" (or "meaning-making" or other likely variant) is not present in the book. ("Meaningful difference" is quoted as a gloss for "value" (p. 2 and elsewhere); Sex and marriage are discussed a lot, and makeup a bit; chapter 2, "Current Directions in Exchange Theory", and Note 27 (p. 267) comes close to a definition. So I am not convinced this is the source of that list, and it may be pure
WP:SYNTHESIS: certainly looking at
Talk:Anthropological theories of value#The List, it appears so.
Si Trew (
talk)
08:32, 15 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom and because there is nothing more vague than "things." — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
UnitedStatesian (
talk •
contribs) 20:22, 15 February 2015
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.
People who were born in the year 1908
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.
Keep and refine target to
1908#Births. Per
WP:CLN, lists and categories should not be considered duplicated effort. We don't need to have this for any other years, but any reader searching for this term is undoubtedly looking for just such a list. Deleting this redirect does them a real disservice. --
BDD (
talk)
21:25, 15 February 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 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.