Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 September 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 10[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 10, 2018.

Miscellaneous far left[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 Retarget to Miscellaneous left and Miscellaneous right. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:15, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not very plausible.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  22:27, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Miscellaneous left and Miscellaneous right as appropriate, which are apparently terms with specific meaning in French elections. There are some sources that use the "far" adjective, and they fall into two types - non-specific uses with a strictly sum of parts meaning of "miscellaneous" + "far right parties"/"far right groups"/etc (and the same with left); and apparently specific uses in the context of French elections (usually, but not exclusively, regional elections). The incomming article space links are also all related to elections in France. I didn't know this before researching these redirects, and it's likely that many other non-French people will also not know and turn to Wikipedia to find out, but the current targets don't really help. Thryduulf (talk) 23:11, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget - I agree. These should go to 'Miscellaneous left' and 'Miscellaneous right' since there's no clear use of the label "miscellaneous" with a specific definition otherwise that I can see (although perhaps some other country, somewhere, has similar voting policies). CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:28, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget as above. I don't see use of this besides in politics, and these are more adjectives like "extreme" or "hard" AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:20, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia does not cover this topic—it's too specific an intersection. On one hand, the current targets do not cover "miscellaneous". On the other hand, the miscellanous articles do not cover the far left/right. -- Tavix (talk) 19:53, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except that's not true - the miscellaneous left/right pages cover all left/right wing ideologies including moderate, far and extreme. Thryduulf (talk) 23:18, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • The ideologies may cover this, but the articles do not. I do not learn anything specific about the miscellaneous far left/right by visiting these articles. -- Tavix (talk) 19:19, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • It sounds like you think the primary use of this will be by people who want to know what distinguishes the "miscellaneous far left" from other "miscellaneous left" policies/parties - by the very nature of the topic this is not something a general purpose encyclopaedia can cover as it would need to examine countless individual candidates. In contrast I believe that it is very significantly more likely that the people who will use these redirects will actually be looking for an explanation of the "miscellaneous" term, already understanding the relationship between "left" and "far left" (all equally applying to the right of course). I know little about French politics but that is the exact state I was in when I started investigating these redirects and the "miscellaneous left"/"miscellaneous right" articles were exactly what helped me and exactly the target that I would have wanted to be taken to had I encountered this term while reading an article. Even if the articles aren't exactly what everybody is looking for (although I suspect it will be for the significant majority), that is still significantly more helpful than a redlink or unpredictable search results. Thryduulf (talk) 19:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • General information about the miscellaneous left/right does not help those looking specifically for information on the miscellaneous far left/right. If I simply wanted general information on the miscellaneous left/right, I would use those terms. Furthermore, I think it's rather biased to say that the better target is Miscellaneous left/right simply because you are more familiar with the term "far", rather than "miscellaneous". Other people may have the opposite problem, whereas they are already aware of the term "miscellaneous", but may not know what "far" means. Your proposed target, since it does not contain any information on "far", is not helpful for those purposes. Since we cannot give them the intersection of those terms becuase Wikipedia does not cover it in one location, deletion is therefore the only option that resolves this issue. -- Tavix (talk) 19:46, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • In other words, it isn't possible to help everybody therefore we should help nobody rather than many, possibly most, people. I could not disagree more. Thryduulf (talk) 22:51, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
              • In other words, there is not an accurate target that explains this term, so people are already not being helped by this redirect, which deletion resolves. -- Tavix (talk) 13:48, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
                • But as I pointed out in my very first comment, at least some people will be helped by the new target - I would have been for example, and I know that there are lot of other people with similar levels of political knowledge to me who will also be helped by the miscellaneous left/right articles. If you know that "far right" is a subset of "right" and "far left" is a subset of "left wing" (which is actually very common knowledge) then miscellaneous right and miscellaneous left tell you everything you need to know to gain a basic understanding of the the term you heard/read. Thryduulf (talk) 16:56, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
                  • But you're extrapolating beyond what the article tells you, and we should not assume others have a similar political background. You already know what "far" means—others may not know that and will search using that term to try to figure out what "miscellaneous far left/right" means. The obvious (to me) problem is that they will not learn what that term means at the target. Therefore, we are doing a disservice to our readers by misleading them in this fashion. -- Tavix (talk) 17:27, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Except I'm not extrapolating, we are not misleading anybody and many if not most people will learn what they want to know. If they want to know what "far left" means they will be searching for "far left" not "miscellaneous far left". Thryduulf (talk) 23:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
                      • My apologies, I guess I missed where Miscellaneous left discusses the "miscellaneous far left" then. Could you please help me out and quote where the "miscellaneous far left" is specifically mentioned? -- Tavix (talk) 02:09, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
                        • The far left is a subset of the left (as is common knowledge politically, and the usual, obvious and correct meaning inferred from the normal English words. Not every subset needs to be explicitly mentioned in order for a redirect to be useful (as you have yourself argued on past occasions). However you know where the edit button is if you think that it is a problem on this occasion. Thryduulf (talk) 11:45, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak retarget as above. I'm sympathetic to Tavix's concerns, but the difference between "far left" and "left" is quite subjective. I can't realistically see us having articles at these titles, but I could see the redirects as proposed being of some use. --BDD (talk) 21:21, 19 September 2018 (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.

Modern cooperative socialism[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. --BDD (talk) 21:15, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not at target. Should it be at Co-operative economics?  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  22:22, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - This seems like it could go to a number of different articles about co-operative markets, modernist thought, and socialist thought. I'm not sure, but I feel like it's best to simply let people search. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:57, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is an ambiguous phrase with no currency (9 Google hits, 7 Google Books, zero Google Scholar), created as a redirect rather than deleting the irrecoverably original research-based article that was at this title for six minutes in 2010. We obviously don't have any content that uses this phrase and shouldn't risk giving the inaccurate impression that the phrase is at all commonly used or has any established meaning. @Mr. Guye: Do you want to add MODERN COOPERATIVE SOCIALISM to this nomination? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:48, 14 September 2018 (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.

The Socialists[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 September 20#The Socialists

Impossible Equality[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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:44, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not particularly helpful, it's just one person's opinion.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  22:15, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is unhelpful WP:POVPUSHING — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosguill (talk • contribs) 22:18, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Rosguill. I wondered if this was a media title or something similar, but I've not found any evidence of that, nor does it seem to be a phrase commonly used by those arguing in opposition to socialism - if it was then WP:RNEUTRAL may have come in to play, but that requires that the non-neutral term be useful for searching, which this does not appear to be. Thryduulf (talk) 23:18, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 01:17, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The redirect's POV is largely irrelevant here, but in any case this phrase isn't discussed at the target, and none of its other scattered appearances around Wikipedia (e.g. at This Misery of Boots) seem like the best place to send the reader either. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 09:42, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Redirects don't have to be NPOV, of course, but the major thing here is that this one doesn't seem useful at all. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:05, 12 September 2018 (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.

Powah[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 September 20#Powah

Public outcry[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 September 19#Public outcry

Art activism[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 retarget to Artivism. Clear consensus and its a WP:SNOW close. (non-admin closure) AmericanAir88(talk) 03:06, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not at target.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  22:06, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to artivism? (Not sure if there's other better targets, that's just the first one I stumbled across.) 59.149.124.29 (talk) 09:47, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to artivism per anon. Seems to be the best target since it is a portmanteau word of the two terms --Lenticel (talk) 00:52, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per the above. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:11, 14 September 2018 (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.

Unlawful age misrepresentation[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 retarget to Age fabrication per Thryduulf. (non-admin closure) ToThAc (talk) 03:16, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not at target.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  22:02, 10 September 2018 (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.

Data diddling[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 September 19#Data diddling

Estafa[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 Withdrawl/Speedy keep. I'm withdrawing this nomination per the point made by Thryduulf and my subsequent research suggesting that it may actually be a formal legal term used in the Philippines' codified criminal law. (non-admin closure)  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  00:00, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fraud has no particular affinity to Spanish.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  22:00, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep this has several incomming links, and plenty more uses of the term, on en.wp. All (of those I looked at individually) in the context of the Philippines, and Wikionary's entry defines it as an English word "(Philippines) fraud, con". It's always used as an English word, without italicisation or an inline definition as would be expected from a non-English word embedded in an English language context. Given that most readers of the encyclopaedia will not be familar with a word used only in Filipino English the redirect serves a clear purpose (and Filipino English is the variety of English most articles related to the Philippines should be written in per WP:TIES). Thryduulf (talk) 23:45, 10 September 2018 (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.

Ethical theories[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. Thryduulf (talk) 12:00, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this be a list?  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  21:58, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Someone searching this isn't necessarily looking at a list. He or she may want to look through various, related concepts in a prose format. At any rate, I don't see any better option than how things are right now. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:07, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It possibly should be a list, but no such list exists, and I can't find any other target more suitable than this. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 21:24, 12 September 2018 (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.

Soldiers Ethics[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. Thryduulf (talk) 21:15, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think this should go somewhere else. I don't know where, but I'm sure we have articles on war ethics / rules of war.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  21:57, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. We have Just war theory, but that's a specific tradition in military ethics, whereas "soldiers' ethics" would refer to the broader topic; and Law of war, but law ≠ ethics. The current target isn't necessarily ideal but it's probably the best we have. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:00, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've added the existing section redirect above. This is what we want, following Military ethics. That should eventually be its own article, so I'll add {{R avoided double redirect}} to this one. --BDD (talk) 21:07, 19 September 2018 (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.

Pidor[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. --BDD (talk) 21:06, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged as "From an alternative language: This is a redirect from a page name in an as yet undetermined language. . ." Which language? Is the language even relevant?  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  21:54, 10 September 2018 (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.

Arse king[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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:44, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not in target.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  21:51, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: not mentioned in the target, nor in any other article, nor is it defined in Wiktionary, nor can I see any reason why it should be. Urban Dictionary doesn't even list a meaning that would be close to "faggot". – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:01, 11 September 2018 (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.

Ffagott[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 retarget to Faggot (unit). (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 23:44, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible spelling that is way off.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  21:49, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • retarget to Faggot (unit). According to that article, this is an Early Modern English spelling of the unit, and there are plenty of reliable sources from or about that time period to support this. Given the topic is possibly going to be most often encountered in that context the redirect seems useful. Thryduulf (talk) 00:01, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Thryduulf. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:52, 11 September 2018 (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.

Dictature[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. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 23:44, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Subject has no particular affinity for French.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  21:38, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep there are several articles that use this word in English (e.g. Branko Petranović), and Wiktionary defines it as an English word (albeit obsolete). The best options here seem to be either keeping it as is or a soft-redirect to Wikitonary and I prefer the former. If this is deleted though the link at List of Prime Ministers of Portugal should be adjusted to point directly to the target. Thryduulf (talk) 00:08, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It strikes me as plausible that somebody could search for this word having come across it in an older English-language work (e.g. Francis Bacon); in that scenario pointing to the synonymous article seems like the best solution. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:16, 11 September 2018 (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.

West Carribean Airways plane crash[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 retarget to West Caribbean Airways#Incidents and accidents. Note: I'll redirect West Caribbean Airways plane crash there as well. Normally I wouldn't, as this hasn't been tagged, but it has been discussed here for nearly the full seven days, and I would think a passing editor would be justified in redirecting it on the basis of this discussion, so I'll just do it. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:54, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is based off of a typo and appears to be left over from a page move to fix it, but was never deleted. It gets less than one click per day on average, so I don't think we need this. funplussmart (talk) 11:48, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that "Caribbean" is spelled wrong. funplussmart (talk) 22:48, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but it is a legitimate {{R from misspelling}}. Dom from Paris (talk) 00:01, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would say retarget both to West Caribbean Airways#Incidents and accidents as a {{R to section}}. Dom from Paris (talk) 00:01, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus-seeking comment: @Funplussmart, Tavix, and AngusWOOF: You three have not explicitly given your support to retargeting the redirects to West Caribbean Airways#Incidents and accidents. Do you support retargeting these redirects?  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  00:10, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I do. Someone should redirect West Carribean Airways to West Caribbean Airways for the sake of consistency though. funplussmart (talk) 00:14, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Created Redirect for West Carribbean Airways. AmericanAir88(talk) 03:01, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, redirect as above. But don't create too many spelling variants or it will confuse. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:05, 15 September 2018 (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.

Child abuse & neglect[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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:45, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget as I believe the target should be Child abuse which has a section on neglect. The actual target could warrant a disambiguation "(journal)" added to it Dom from Paris (talk) 11:08, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep/wrong venue. While the journal is at this title this is absolutely the correct location for the redirect to point (differences in capitalisation should not normally point to different targets). If you think that the journal is not the primary topic for the phrase then you need to start a WP:RM discussion. Iff the article is moved then this redirect should be retargetted to match the capitalised term. Thryduulf (talk) 13:07, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment that's the title of the journal, you can add hatnotes to child abuse and child neglect. The only others are PTM's like International Society for the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:40, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as creator note that this is the string that google scholar uses for the journal name. It was created when I cut and pasted a reference from google scholar into Robyn Munford and then created the redirect to make it go to the right place. I have no particular opinion on the fate of the redirect. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:09, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is, and I would oppose the move request if it came to be. It is unlikely that someone searching for "Child abuse & neglect" is searching for a topic that combines both child abuse or child neglect. They would have searched for either 'Child abuse', or 'Child neglect'. Kinda the same that someone searching for Chemical & engineering news isn't looking for a topic that combines both chemistry news, and engineering news in general. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:48, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with Headbomb: someone who searches for this is most likely looking for the journal, rather than the topics the journal deals with. Child abuse and child neglect are both linked at the top of the infobox in the target, so in the event that someone arrives at this article is looking for either of those, they aren't hard to find. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:59, 11 September 2018 (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.

Hypoxantha[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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:44, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Specific epithet for multiple species; no reason to redirect to this one. Paul_012 (talk) 10:43, 10 September 2018 (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.

Magnificus[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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:44, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not mentioned in target or any of its subarticles. Paul_012 (talk) 10:26, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There is a Transformers character by this name according to the Transformers Wiki, and it has some relation to Perceptor (but I don't understand quite what based on the mentions in that article) but there is no good target for the character on Wikipedia. The primary topics on google are a clothing company and a medical supply company, neither of which have any mention on Wikipedia (I haven't investigated whether they are notable). As for actual mentions on Wikipedia, there are many, many partial title matches for species names, partial title matches for the Rector Magnificus of several universities and a passing mention of a very minor character at List of Marvel Family enemies (N–Z)#The Sivana Family. None of these are useful targets, so we're left with delete. Thryduulf (talk) 13:16, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Thryduulf. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:38, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 00:40, 16 September 2018 (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.

Mannii[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 Speedily deleted by Ponyo under criterion WP:CSD#G1. Thryduulf (talk) 00:11, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Not sure what this is, or whether it's vandalism. Suggest deletion. Paul_012 (talk) 08:59, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as gibberish. Basic Google search returns only species with species name "mannii". Not even Urban Dictionary knows any prostitution-related definition for "Mannii". –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:56, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. I tried explicitly searching for "mannii" prostitution but all I found was colocations with plant names, OCR errors and gibberish. Thryduulf (talk) 10:06, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Gibberish. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  22:36, 10 September 2018 (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.

Longifolia[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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:43, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Specific epithet for many other species. No reason to redirect to dab page specific only to P. longifolia. Paul_012 (talk) 07:16, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are almost no circumstances in which specific epithets should have their own dab page, and certainly not ones a common as this. The International Plant Names Index lists 2,182 names with this epithet; picking out one makes no sense. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:09, 10 September 2018 (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.

Moorei[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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:43, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Specific epithet for many other species. No reason to redirect to this one. Paul_012 (talk) 07:15, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alternately, soft redirect to Wiktionary, as has previously been done for other pages of this type. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:22, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per #Longifolia. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:05, 10 September 2018 (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.

Scandens[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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:43, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Specific epithet for many other species. No reason to redirect to a dab page that covers only two of them. Paul_012 (talk) 07:15, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alternately, soft redirect to Wiktionary, as has previously been done for other pages of this type. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:22, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per #Longifolia. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:05, 10 September 2018 (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.

Truncata[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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Specific epithet for many other species. No reason to redirect to a dab page that covers only two of them. Paul_012 (talk) 07:14, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alternately, soft redirect to Wiktionary, as has previously been done for other pages of this type. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:22, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per #Longifolia. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:05, 10 September 2018 (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.

Siamensis[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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:37, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Specific epithet for a plethora of species. Inappropriate to redirect to one that doesn't even have an article. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:01, 10 September 2018 (UTC) Paul_012 (talk) 07:01, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alternately, soft redirect to Wiktionary, as has previously been done for other pages of this type. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:22, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only in very special cases should specific names be redirects, and geographical ones especially not, since they are likely to be used in many combinations. I would just delete. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:35, 10 September 2018 (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.

Verinder Koul[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. During the discussion, sources were found connecting the father and son, and the son's name was added to the article along with a source. This seems to alleviate some of concerns that were brought up. However, other concerns remain, including whether or not the sources found were reliable (enough), and whether or not the connection and discussion of Virendra/Verinder in the article is enough to merit a redirect. On the other hand, others have pointed out that although the article could be better sourced, this is still a useful {{R from relative}} that points to the information Wikipedia has on him. All that taken together, I do not see consensus to delete at this time. -- Tavix (talk) 16:01, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently I was mistaken and this is not a BLP, however my point still stands that redirecting an individual to another which is loosely covered and poorly sourced at best is not good practice.Directing a BLP to another person's article based on the single mention which is unsourced goes against every BLP policy. I can't find a single source that supports this, much less that it's relevant or useful as a redirect. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:45, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BLP???? According to the article that I redirected he was killed along with his father on 1 May 1990. ~ GB fan 15:45, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
GB fan How can we possibly know that to be true when there are no sources to support this? I came up with exactly nothing but Facebook. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:50, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not to hard to find sources [4] (son's name is spelled Virendra), [5], [6] (doesn't mention the son's name just that he was killed also. ~ GB fan 16:05, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Then the redirect name should be changed, but I still stand by not directing people to other people with whom they are loosely affiliated (being born to someone is meaningless as compared to collaborating on something notable.) And you'll note in my AFD of the target article, the sources don't seem particularly reliable, specifically that first one which reads like what I'd expect an 8th grader's journal entry to be. I'm sure their deaths are tragic but what looks like a random op-ed type piece isn't sufficient for this or for the main article. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:12, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing I am questioning is your statement that this is a redirect of a BLP. Two sources give a name to the son, one (Times of India) spells it the same as the redirect. The other (Kashmir Herald) spells it differently. So it wouldn't need to be renamed. ~ GB fan 16:18, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That was my mistake, i've amended my original request. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:33, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Redirects from the names of non-notable people to articles on their notable relatives are commonplace and useful, even when the mention in the target article is quite brief. The target could be better-sourced, but the Kashmir Herald article linked above by GB fan makes the connection between the two people quite clear. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:01, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have to take into consideration that these massacres happened during times when there was no social media so you will not find much online resources but these events are part of many published books as well. Like Our Moon Has Blood Clots by Rahul Pandita — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aimaadi (talk • contribs) 10:50, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is anyone confident enough to add the son's name to the article? I don't know how credible a source the Kashmir Herald is, but this does seem like a simple "keep" if there's relevant material in the father's article. --BDD (talk) 21:13, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:53, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BDD: The son's name was mentioned in the article until it was removed on August 26. I've added it back and cited the Kashmir Herald article linked above. (There is still the issue of spelling – the Herald and now the article use "Virendra Koul", whereas the redirect uses "Verinder" – but that's presumably a matter of different possible transliterations, and there's no likelihood that the redirect will cause confusion with any other topic.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 21:29, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless there is going to be a section that focuses on Verinder or Virendra, this isn't going to help someone looking for biographical information on them. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:08, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    But unless he's notable in his own right, it would be a typical {{R from relative}}. --BDD (talk) 13:38, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note: Target has been moved to Sarwanand Koul Premi and was kept at AfD
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:44, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've updated the target above, and created Virendra Koul as a redirect there. This one can be tagged with {{R avoided double redirect|Virendra Koul}}. Please note I mean this to be helpful, akin to drafting a disambiguation page, and not disruptive. This doesn't preclude a "delete" outcome here, and if done on the basis that we don't want a redirect for this person at all, then by all means, G6 my new redirect as well. --BDD (talk) 20:55, 19 September 2018 (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.

Monkey fucker[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 retarget to Squat (exercise)#Bodyweight. --BDD (talk) 20:48, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

not mentioned in the target article. possible vandalism? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:56, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Really should be needed here, I think that is possible vandalism indeed. Animation is developing 00:33, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Definite vandalism. ⠀TOMÁSTOMÁSTOMÁS⠀TALK⠀ 13:42, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Either vandalism or an incomprehensible social statement on the exercise technique. Useless either way. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:15, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 01:17, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget (see new comment below.) Keep as a plausible search term for someone who wants to know more on the exercise similar to Squat Thrust which is popular among the USMC [1] but couldn't recall the real name. The popularity of this catchy name is quite obvious. The name even has mention in books related to the Marine corps.[2][3] The hit count on these links show that it is not WP:OR based on these sources [4][5][6] it is not vandalism. Search google for "Monkey Fucker excercise". Courtesy pinging the other contributors if they want to reconsider their !vote User:Matt294069 User:TomasTomasTomas User:doomsdayer520 User:Lenticel--DBigXrayᗙ 22:25, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Marine Corps Daily Workout Routine". 4 July 2010.
  2. ^ Fetherstonhaugh, Neil; Dale, Graham (6 August 2012). "The Green Marine: An Irishman's War in Iraq". Hachette Books Ireland – via Google Books.
  3. ^ Platt, Piers (25 February 2014). "Combat and Other Shenanigans: A Humorous Memoir from the Iraq War". Piers Platt – via Google Books.
  4. ^ "Urban Dictionary: Monkey Fucker". Urban Dictionary.
  5. ^ HellBoy20z (22 July 2011). "Monkey Fuckers" – via YouTube.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  6. ^ dustinbrockman (26 February 2011). "The Perfect Monkey-Fucker" – via YouTube.

--DBigXrayᗙ 22:32, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the research. I should've stopped to search myself, however, videos show that the "Monkey Fucker" is completely different from what a burpee is. Either way, my vote is still delete, as confusion between the two exercises would occur. ⠀TOMÁSTOMÁSTOMÁS⠀TALK⠀ 02:56, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In this case I will acknowledge that I missed the common usage of the term among the military and other exercise buffs, but my vote will remain the same because I am not convinced that the term directly corresponds to the longstanding Burpee technique. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:42, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have added another google book reference above. --DBigXrayᗙ 22:03, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Marinestylefitness.com reference above is not a reliable source; it is a forum comment. About the only one that might be valid of the ones listed is the book entry by Piers Platt, which describes the exercise that involves a "squatting motion" and does not connect it to a specific exercise. The Green Marine book is a passing mention that does not describe in detail the exercise, only that it was also known as a "Chinese sit-up", but looking at videos for Chinese sit-ups, they look different. The two YouTube ones are just random videos of people doing the exercise. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:31, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Before I arrived here, there was a consensus amongst above contributors that this was vandalism. I argued that it is not and provided the links with non trivial hitcounts to show that it is not some made up thing. Green marine mentions it more than once and Platt, Piers describes it. Enough Notability to merit keeping the redirect as a plausible search keyword. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:01, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 10:53, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:38, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if we retarget would in not be useful to add "(exercise)" after it because it can be a cocktail www.topshelfrecipies.com/monkey-fucker.htm and also an insult notably from the film Hamlet 2 where "You ass-turd monkey fucker!" has quite a large number of hits on google. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:30, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dom from Paris As long as we do not have an article for the slang You ass-turd monkey fucker!. adding excercise will be an unnecessary disambiguation. --DBigXrayᗙ 14:07, 11 September 2018 (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/2018_September_10&oldid=1138582530"