Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 December 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 22[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 22, 2016.

Template:Request denied[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 7#Template:Request denied

Race Differences in Intelligence (References)[edit]

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. -- Tavix (talk) 00:13, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At one point, the information in the target article was structured such that these would make some sort of sense (I think). But now, I don't think they have any utility at all, and are only likely to confuse readers. "(References)" isn't disambiguating, and suggests a page of references, like a bibliography. --BDD (talk) 21:17, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: There are a lot of vestigial terms like this. If you can still see this note, I'm still adding (go ahead and comment if you'd like, though). --BDD (talk) 21:20, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (at least the seven listed as of this timestamp) all. I really don't understand the point of these redirects - I expected them to have been used as holding pens for material during a comprehensive rewrite and associated discussions (this is best done outside the mainspace, but it wouldn't be the only example in ns0) however they were all created as redirects to the article - not even section redirects. Whatever the whys of their creation they aren't useful now. Thryduulf (talk) 21:41, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Looks like these are remnants of a series of article forks that were merged in 2007 and an odd decision to shift reference sections into another page shared among the forks. - Eureka Lott 20:37, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - I agree that these aren't useful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:12, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Australias[edit]

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 keep. The discussion has established that this is a valid historical name. Deryck C. 12:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not a plural. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 22:08, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a likely typo--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:11, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's a valid, but antiquated plural to refer to the Australian colonies. [1], [2], [3] ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:04, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    To what extent would that usage be confined to what we today know as Australia? I didn't know before just now that New Zealand was part of the colony of New South Wales until 1841, so it seems likely to have been included in "the Australias" at least up until that point. I'm trying to find a use of "Australias" on Wikipedia, but the search results are just full of what should be "Australia's", including in URLs. --BDD (talk) 20:45, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@BDD: Searching "the australias" (including the quotes) brings up five results for me (viz. The New Traveller's Almanac, World of The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, Bill Johnston (cricketer), Miss Satine, and Bunyip aristocracy). — Godsy (TALKCONT) 04:15, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 18:47, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Australo[edit]

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 disambiguate. I'll create it at Australo- since it's a prefix, and retarget the other redirect there. -- Tavix (talk) 22:58, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTDIC article does not explain the meaning of the prefix. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 22:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:51, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_December_26#Hispanico q.v. A somewhat different case as that was back-formed from Hispánico by User:Eubot. Si Trew (talk) 06:55, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabify, but we might be better to do that by adding info at austro and then retargeting there. What, presumably, we want to avoid is the confusion of austro- meaning "East" (but not always) and australo- meaning "South" (but often, "Australia" particularly). That confusion might be better avoided by having both at the same target, we're WP:NOTDIC so we needn't rigidly separate entries as we would at Wiktionary. Si Trew (talk) 06:55, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Austro and add information about it there in the appropriate manner. I'm also okay with disambiguation.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 18:03, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabify. I don't think retargeting to the dab at Austro is a good idea, as there's only a single shared meaning ("south"), Australo- can't refer to Austria or the goddess, nor can Austro- refer to Australia. I've drafted a two-entry dab page below the redirect at Australo. Si Trew, I'm not sure I see your point about austro- meaning "east", what language is that?. – Uanfala (talk) 20:09, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

CDTD[edit]

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. The rough consensus is that although there isn't another topic on the English Wikipedia that can be abbreviated CDTD, the abbreviation isn't commonly used for this topic. Deryck C. 12:18, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Totally random, I'm not seeing any evidence that this is a common abbreviation for the album name, nor do we have any articles that mention this abbreviation. The problem is that there are many entities (notable or not) with this abbreviation and readers could be looking for anything, only to be mislead. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 10:11, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Not every media title or organization needs an acronym. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:59, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with hatnote "CDTD redirects here". Mihirpmehta (talk) 20:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why a hatnote, what else does this refer to that has an article? - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 22:12, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't have a specific article in mind, but I agree with the concern you raised - there could be another article with the same abbreviation. Mihirpmehta (talk) 00:44, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Mihirpmehta: I did check, and there is no article with this abbreviation mentioned. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 04:50, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Champion: Thanks for taking the effort, but an article title may have this abbreviation even if it's not mentioned anywhere. For instance, the abbreviation "TVSOR" returns no results on a Wikipedia search, and yet we have a page The Violent Sleep of Reason. I continue to support keeping the redirect and adding a hatnote. Mihirpmehta (talk) 19:02, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:50, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the above CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:54, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I searched through 200 results in Google and not a single result was about the album or song. I'm all for creating redirects from abbreviations when they're attested, but MOS:ABBREV says avoid making up new abbreviations, especially acronyms. -- Tavix (talk) 01:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Category:'Adan Governorate[edit]

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 keep. The general consensus is that we can keep this because this redirect resulted from a page move from an acceptable alternative name and category redirects have become commonplace in recent years. Deryck C. 12:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Patentical nonsense. GXXF T • C 19:30, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This discussion should be at WP:CfD, not here. However, the category is a perfectly reasonable category redirect: the first line of Aden Governorate shows the Arabic name being transliterated as 'Adan. The nominator's justification is self-referential: Noyster (talk), 00:37, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Noyster. Yemen placenames used to be a huge mess and this is just one of the redirects resulting from the effort to clean them up per WP:COMMONNAME. -Kudzu1 (talk) 08:12, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Category redirects used to be used very sparingly, but they seem to have been more common lately. This one was created by a page move, so I guess as far off as April 2015, this was happening automatically? I wish we could check a What links here to figure out if the target category has any other soft redirects.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:49, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You can check the "what links here" as on any other page as a category redirect contains a templated link to its target. The only catch is that if any of the redirects have redirects of their own, these aren't going to be displayed: so if A redirects to B and B redirects to C, the "what links here" from C will not show A. – Uanfala (talk) 01:21, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above. I don't see any wording cautioning against the use of category redirects at WP:CATRED, and the redirect under discussion is very similar to the examples of appropriate redirects given there. – Uanfala (talk) 01:21, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per the above CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:SYSTEMICBIASISNOTPOLICYOREVENAGUIDELINE[edit]

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. -- Tavix (talk) 00:18, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:CREATINGASHOUTINGTITLEFORAONESENTENCEESSAYDEMONSTRATINGSOMEOBSCUREPOINTISDISRPUTINGTOMAKETHATPOINT. Two essays created at the same time with a gripe about the the value of essays which were later redirected to the the essay we already have on that topic, and which are unlikely to be actually typed out in a discussion. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:06, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that the aforementioned gripe was entirely valid, only creating two shouting redirects for it was probably not. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@SSTflyer: you realize these are redirects, right? -- Tavix (talk) 21:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I do. These are not useful as redirect pages but may be useful as essays if reverted to a previous revision. SSTflyer 16:39, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So your !vote should be interpreted as "revert", not "procedural keep". Redirects should not be listed at WP:MFD. -- Tavix (talk) 16:43, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Scientific religion[edit]

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. -- Tavix (talk) 00:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Obscure synonym, there is also Religious Science, Relationship between religion and science etc, all of which are specific topics. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 07:16, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or disambig. This is not a good redirect to a single religion as there are many that have scientific aspects (or claim to). Most of the google hits for the exact phrase are related to people asking whether a given religion (most commonly Hinduism, secondly Islam) is scientific, articles about how a given religion (again most commonly Hinduism) is a scientific religion, or people asking which religion is the most scientific. I'm uncertain though whether we can construct a dab page that deals with these sorts of uses and the topics the nominator highlights? Thryduulf (talk) 11:49, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I do not believe Wikipedia can allow this page to redirect to Scientology - or Pastafarianism, or Satanism, or whatever - without violating neutral point of view. I would support a redirect to a page evaluating various faiths' claims to science-friendliness, but I am not aware of such a page. Mihirpmehta (talk) 03:08, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Should be a stand-alone article or no article at all. --Fixuture (talk) 12:53, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Pindas[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 7#Pindas

A noodle[edit]

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. The emerging consensus is that, despite the fact that "a noodle" is sensibly used in certain contexts, it doesn't help to put the indefinite article in front of this common noun. Deryck C. 12:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is going to search for this for we rarely talk about "a noodle" in a countable sense. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:49, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. It seems a few people actually do use this. Thryduulf (talk) 11:28, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is this some company product or a noodle classification? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:07, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete common word that would not be served any use for having an extra "A" in front. Articles already exist for pool noodle and wet noodle. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:51, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wins for Toyota — Safety Group[edit]

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. -- Tavix (talk) 00:33, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:45, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Completely non-notable internal company program. --Slashme (talk) 09:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Simple rice[edit]

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. -- Tavix (talk) 00:30, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all usages of this term are websites for recipes, hence WP:NOTGUIDEBOOK. I bet we don't have simple wheat, simple vegetables, simple noodles etc etc. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 02:40, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this even started out as a recipe. Wikipedia is not a cookbook, although Wikibooks has b:Category:Rice recipes none of them are called "simple rice" and even if it did I don't think this would be a good soft redirect to it. Thryduulf (talk) 03:00, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Vietnam Long Grain Rice[edit]

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. (Based on the former content, it should have gone G11 a long time ago.) -- Tavix (talk) 00:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT a catalogue, almost all usages of this term were used in that sense. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 02:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Chaaval[edit]

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 no consensus. I echo Uanfala's comment that deciding a target is difficult, as this discussion proved. Among other arguments, a general trend I've found was those wanting the redirects kept point out that they are simply synonyms for rice in Indian and Pakistani English while those advocating to retarget feel that more specific articles would suit readers better. Both are well founded arguments and both have been thoroughly countered, so I cannot find consensus at this time. -- Tavix (talk) 22:51, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No particular relation to whatever language this is, the closest I could find was Kadhi chawal, but I don't think that is a synonym. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 02:28, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Apparently, "chawal" is an English word[4] of Hindi derivation meaning "rice", especially as part of a dish, so it's a simple partial title match for Kadhi chawal and not a good target. Retarget Chawal to Pakistani rice dishes, the second sentence of that article begins "The most simple dish of Pakistani cuisine is plain cooked rice (chawal)".
Retarget Chaaval to List of plants used in Indian cuisine#Cereals where "चावल (chaaval)" is the second entry and contains a link to rice. Thryduulf (talk) 03:13, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and tag with {{R from alternative language}} (Urdu and Hindi respectively). Indian/Pakistani English uses Hindi/Urdu derived terms for common food plants; we have redirects for methi and brinjal and a dab page at aloo for some other food plants in South Asian English. Plantdrew (talk) 16:26, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Thryduulf. Those areas are more informative as to the context of rice. If you want to keep it at Rice then it should be mentioned in the region as with some of the particular rice dishes. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:55, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep From this and this it seems "chawal" simply means rice in Hindi. I think the current redirect is fine. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:01, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Lemongirl942 and Plantdrew: We generally don't retain foreign language redirects unless they have a specific affinity for their target, e.g. we wouldn't redirect a translation of apple in every foreign language to apple (even in places where they are commonly eaten as it takes a bit more than that), see WP:RFOREIGN. Therefore, List of plants used in Indian cuisine#Cereals and Pakistani rice dishes are appropriate targets, whereas rice is not.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 05:17, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Lemongirl942: That is true, but they lack mentions at rice. I think it is more helpful to direct readers to where we have explicit information about chaaval and chawal. Best Regards, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 05:39, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, we generally don't. But it's not that rice has a strong affinity for India. It's that Indian English has a strong affinity for using Hindi derived terms for grains and vegetables.Plantdrew (talk) 21:50, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to List of plants used in Indian cuisine#Cereals and Pakistani rice dishes respectively per Thryduulf.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 05:17, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or retarget to South Asian cuisine. The list of plants article isn't the best target because chawal typically refers to the cooked grain, not the plant. Likewise splitting to India/Pakistan doesn't make sense as the usage is common across multiple cuisines including Northern, western and eastern Indian, Nepali, Bangladeshi in addition to Pakistani. Only in southern Indian cuisines is the term rarely used (though even there it's commonly used in the case of Hyderabadi cuisine). —SpacemanSpiff 06:26, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @SpacemanSpiff: Neither South Asian cuisine nor Hyderabadi cuisine use either term and are very general articles so people using these redirects to find out what they are would not be helped. The reason I chose the suggested targets I did was because they use the terms in context and provide both relevant information and links to the current target. Thryduulf (talk) 12:26, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two redirects are spelling variants so they should have the same target. Now, what that target should be is obviously difficult to decide at present, but ideally that would be some text-to-be-added-in-the-future in either Rice#Dishes or South Asian cuisine. – Uanfala (talk) 22:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

2005 Sanriku Japan Earthquake[edit]

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. -- Tavix (talk) 00:22, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No related content on WP. This was a low intensity shock with no consequences. Of several hundred responses on the USGS' "Did you feel it?" reporting tool, none were higher than IV (Light) (This was a shallow undersea earthquake that occurred about 150 miles (240 km) from land). A 32 centimetres (13 in) tsunami wave occurred, but again, this is Japan (no stranger to destructive tsunami). Magnitude alone is insufficient information to judge the effects or intensity of an earthquake.

Dawnseeker2000 01:20, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I have done some research because I was curious how this redirect came about. The article 2005 Sanriku Japan Earthquake was created just 40 minutes after the earthquake occurred, in November 2005. In July 2007 an IP added a paragraph on previous earthquakes in the same region that had caused major damage. In September 2007 the article's creator proposed deleting it, acknowledging it was a minor quake that didn't need an article. But instead of being deleted, it was converted to the current format of a list of seismic events in the region and moved to Seismicity of the Sanriku coast. A redirect was created when the article was moved, which brings us to the current situation.
Now that we know why it exists, the question then is whether this is something people are going to search for. Dawnseeker's description above is accurate. It received some immediate news coverage, but as far as I can tell it caused no damage. So I do not think anyone will come looking for information on the event, and if they do, they will be disappointed because it is not described in the article. So the link seems rather pointless. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 08:13, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Chinese region[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 7#Chinese region

China (cultural region)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 6#China (cultural region)

IPhony[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 7#IPhony

Fush[edit]

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, which seems to be the majority in argument as all other opinions were admittedly weak. I do have to applaud Uanfala's attempt to disambiguate though. -- Tavix (talk) 22:34, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Readers are more likely to be looking for some obscure topic than as a typo. We do have Abr Fush and Fush Yu Mang, but unsure if this is a plausible search term for either, a Google for this brings up many obscure neologisms. Also, this is equally a likely typo for Gush etc.- CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:25, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded, we don't usually make redirects for obscure typos, AFAIK. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 00:30, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • very weak keep. "Fush" is apparently the approximate pronunciation of "Fish" in New Zealand English (see New Zealand English#Short front vowel shift and c.f. Fush and chups → New Zealand English). To me this, and the U and I keys being adjacent on a QWERTY keyboard just tip this into plausibility to me. Thryduulf (talk) 01:06, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak dabify, awkwardly There's 1) the New Zealand pronunciation of fish (apparently well-known enough to have entered into idioms); 2) the identically sounding Fusch; 3) a somewhat similarly sounding FOOSH (acronym); 4) an abbreviation for Heat of fusion (but this seems to appear only in mathematical notation, add to that the variable order Hfus ~ fusH, as well as the different combinations of subscripting, and this is beginning to look much less eligible for inclusion); 5) a typo for FUHS. Well, that's mostly just "see also" stuff, so I'm not sure if it could all add up to to a proper dab. But, if no-one attempts to talk some sense into me, I'm going to go ahead and draft that awkward dab, which you will all have to live with afterwards. – Uanfala (talk) 01:05, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What do you call a fish with no eyes? A fsh. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 17:58, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. When we have a title that is a plausible misspelling of multiple things but not the correct name of any notable topic, deletion is the appropriate outcome. Deryck C. 12:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Gallophagia[edit]

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. -- Tavix (talk) 20:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This almost certainly is absolute nonsense, a Google shows only results that seemingly are mirrored from Wikipedia. - (NOTE:Combined for they were created on the same day by the same user) CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:10, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Unattested neologisms. Mixed Greek (phagia) and non-Greek roots; chicken should probably be something along the lines of poul- in Greek and pork should be choir-. Plantdrew (talk) 16:16, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:05, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - I agree. This seem useless. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:55, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Boiled ham[edit]

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. -- Tavix (talk) 20:41, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All not mentioned in target. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:04, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. This would bring up expectations of articles on the varieties of packaging or preparing ham that are not currently covered. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:05, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the above CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:15, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_December_22&oldid=1088109880"