Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 March 22

March 22
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 22, 2015.

American american



 * 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. Right now, there is consensus to delete. Anyone may try pushing the dab into mainspace. Some of its entries seem spurious to me, but it could be pruned through editorial action or taken to AfD as necessary. --BDD (talk) 14:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * American american → Native Americans in the United States (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_american&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Unused and potentially confusing. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:20, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. WP:RFD confusing. 21:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.236.35.53 (talk)  Si Trew (talk) 22:14, 22 March 2015 (UTC) Keep forgetting to sign in, sorry. Si Trew (talk) 22:14, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment. I was wondering if unamerican → Un-American is possible, as ? Si Trew (talk) 22:14, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete I can't find good targets for this entry. The closest target that I got is the wrestler Jack Swagger, the "The All-American American". -- Lenticel ( talk ) 00:03, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete I think I understand what is trying to be said here. It's a play on putting "place of origin" in front of American to get a hyphenated ethnicity. Ex: African-American, Asian-American, etc. Do the same for people who are actually from America, and you get "American-American". However, I don't think that practice is actually in use and if is it, I don't think it is widespread enough to be of any use. Tavix | Talk  05:23, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. Ah, I see what you mean. I kinda like the idea of going to {{{no redirect|All-American}} → All America somehow, but if it's ambiguous or misleading that's no good. I think it was Mark Twain, a fine inventor of words, who suggested that Americans should call themselves "Statesians", but that one never caught on, patently. I'm being persuaded towards the delete but I think there might be other possibilities...  Si Trew (talk) 06:48, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * retarget to American ancestry. I have heard this used in the sense that someone is American and their ancestry doesn't matter, or where ones (great)(grand)parents were all Americans and not more recent immigrants. The suggested target is the closest I can find to that, and it does link to native Americans in the see also, and to Americans more generally in the hatnote. Thryduulf (talk) 21:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Retarget to American patriotism. Not brilliant, that's a stub... Thry's might be better.... just at least we agree it has to go somewhere. Si Trew (talk) 11:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think it does have to go somewhere - I would prefer deleting it rather than retargeting, because I don't think there is a clear target, at least not right now, and I don't think targeting to something that's "closest" would be beneficial. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm actually now thinking an American American dab page would be best (with this pointing there as an alternative capitalisation redirect). Thryduulf (talk) 01:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * What entries would you include on such a dab page? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I've made a draft, at Draft:American American. Very much a draft. Si Trew (talk) 06:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * So WP:JUSTDOIT. It's not perfect, it's just better. Si Trew (talk) 09:20, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * American ethnicity is an option too. --BDD (talk) 13:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I've added American ethnicity and tweaked the descriptor to "Peoples of the United States" (from "History of the United States") which I think is better, but not perfect. Thryduulf (talk) 15:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * delete Seeing as how these vaguely similar targets are being thrown out, perhaps we should go for Yankee Doodle Dandy. The thing is that, with all this guessing at what someone typing this in might mean, it still c0omes down to guessing. It's not going to give us a normal disambiguation page where we've got the phrase in question appearing in article titles. American ancestry is the best target suggested but one has to think that's not what the person who created the redirect had in mind. Seyasirt (talk) 20:29, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No, that's exactly what we don't have to think. We do have to guess "Someone searched for this, what might they possibly be looking for?" That's kinda our job. Now, there are reasons to delete if it is a confusing term: But it patently isn't confusing, in the sense that nobody searching for this suddenly finds Yorkshire Television or Brocolli. They are looking for something that is the quintesential "American american" (plus royaliste que le roi, if you will: More royalist than the king: More American than an American): and what is that? What we are doing is trying to think of what they might be looking for. Actually, I am tempted to add Yankee Doodle to the draft DAB, and perhaps Sam Houston and Sam Adams for that matter. It is just a draft for discussion. If you delete "American American", you have 100% chance nobody will find what they are looking for; if we make a DAB, there is slightly more than 0% chance they will find what they are looking for. I might add American Airlines as well. Si Trew (talk) 15:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * By the way I assume you meant Yankee Doodle Boy. Si Trew (talk) 15:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Now I am trying to think of that brand of peanut butter with the chap with the monocle, captain peanut or something. These patriotic things are a mess, maybe, but they are a proper mess. Or in the alternative, we just delete any American patriotism at all then. Actually, I was thinking it would have been something that P. T. Barnum might have said, an "all american, american american circus" or something (he was known for a bit of the old blarney), but it appears not, or at least I couldn't find it. Si Trew (talk) 15:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * To put it another way (and I realise I am pushing my point): Just because something is wrong does not make it unhelpful. People come to an encylopaedia (we must assume) to find out things they didn't know before. I just found out about Desloratadine, for example, a one-a-day tablet I have been taking for hay fever but seems to make me very sleepy and with a dry tongue: two of its common side effects, apparently, which I don't ever get with straight Loratadine. Now, without that information, I can't go to the doctor and say sorry but don't prescribe me that again, can you please put me back on Loratadrine. It's got an extra chlorine on the end and stuff, two benzene rings, and a single double bond chemical chain, it's left handed, I can tell you all that stuff, but didn't know it. I found it out from Wikipedia. That is because a chemist much better than me wrote the article, and made it available to millions of people, of which I am one, to improve my knowledge. Why are you asking for others to be denied theirs? To me, the only reason to delete something is if it confuses things, or in any other way makes it harder for them to find them. I didn't realise this library shut at weekends. It doesn't. We're here whenever anyone wants to look up anything, and our job, and at RfD our only job, is to help them find it. Sometimes that means Keep, sometimes means Delete, sometimes means Retarget, sometimes means DAB it, but that is our only job. Si Trew (talk) 15:57, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. The term is ambiguous to a point where not even disambiguation is possible. Steel1943  (talk) 00:41, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 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.

Elizabeth Mary
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 March 31%23Elizabeth Mary