Talk:Redhead (disambiguation)

red headed monkey —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.212.79.228 (talk) 19:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

This presumably referred to the Red-tailed monkey. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 10:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

---

Should this page be blocked from edits? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.54.75.172 (talk) 23:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 24 June 2016

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.

The result of the move request was: Move. We have a pretty clear consensus that red hair is the primary topic of the term redhead, and that it should therefore redirect there. Cúchullain ^t/c 14:49, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

---

Redhead → Redhead (disambiguation) – Redhead should redirect to Red hair per WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT, as it is the clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC per long-term significance. SSTflyer 14:03, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose: no evidence that the hair is more likely to be looked for in Wikipedia than all the many other uses put together. PamD 09:09, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
• 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 Slash 17:04, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose no benefit 2601:541:4305:C70:5CBA:D560:880A:76D8 (talk) 16:33, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose – We can improve the disambig page instead: I placed the main definition on top and organized the others in sections. — JFG ^talk 22:06, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • So you admit that a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC exists. What is the benefit of inconveniencing the majority of readers? SSTflyer 13:51, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

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). — JFG ^talk 05:18, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

• Support per WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. Nohomersryan (talk) 17:05, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
• 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)
• Support as nominated. Being a "Redhead" normally refers to someone with red hair and is the primary topic for this phrase/term. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:51, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

@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. — JFG ^talk 08:54, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

• 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)

---

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.