Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 May 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 16[edit]

Arse shaggin' → Anal sex[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 00:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating multiple redirects to this article for deletion, for three main reasons:

1. Unlikely search terms

2. Unnecessary vulgarity

3. Article titles are not necessarily synonyms

Guy Fuchsia 23:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all. The first two categories don't belong. For the third I found one incoming link from an unrelated subject, so that's not justifiable either. YechielMan 01:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - Unlikely search terms. Cool Bluetalk to me 17:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep cum fart. Content was merged from that article into oral sex last year (why? I don't know). It would be best to maintain the author information of this content. Although, it shouldn't be a redirect to anal sex. I don't really see a good target for it - either flatulence or semen might work. I'm going to go ahead and throw an r from merge tag on it and remove the rfd notice due to the gfdl author issue. --- RockMFR 01:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Renominate more individually For example greek sex/love/style is quite common,at worse it should redirect to something like homosexuality.For the others, may be some research would be needed.The subject is full of obscure slangs ,did you know what tossing the salad is?--Bip beep 07:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Immigration Day Rally → The Los Angeles May Day mêlée[edit]

The result of the debate was no consensus as to May Day Rally and retarget May day parade. WjBscribe 04:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are other events with that name. The one last year also was called that, although it wasn't on May 1. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC) Also[reply]

I have doubts about some of the others, but that should be dealt with separately. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Actually, there was one last year on May 1, and there were reports of riots, according to our article at 2006 United States immigration reform protests.
  • Comment. I have re-targeted May day parade to May Day and closed that one. There are multiple May Day parades and so it should not redirect to a specific one. If there are specific articles on May Day parades, it could be made into a disambig page, but I didn't see anything. -- JLaTondre 11:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with JLaTondre on the May day parade, but Keep the May Day Rally andImmigration Day Rally – these two are highly relevant to a current event. In fact, in my opinion there need to be even more redirects to The Los Angeles May Day mêlée – come on, how many English speaking people (non-native speakers included) use the word mêlée in their active vocabulary? --BeautifulFlying 17:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that there are other events that would logically be called that, including the ones last year. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Then, maybe disambigs should be created instead of redirects, that would provide directions to all other relevant events? --BeautifulFlying 23:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Ian Mcknight → Ma malakat aymanukum[edit]

The result of the debate was speedily deleted by Mike Rosoft (log) Gavia immer (talk) 14:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be a random redirection? EliminatorJR Talk 01:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Silesia national football team → Silesia football team[edit]

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre 01:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no independent nation of Silesia, hence no Silesia national football team. There is a regional team made up of players from the football clubs based in the region. The name containing the word "national" is completely inaccurate. I moved the article to the correct name and request that the leftover inflammatory redirect be removed. Balcer 05:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Silesians are ethnic group (+ 0.2 million people in 2002 year officially to declare for nation/nationality)
  2. Silesia is region (till 1945 year he had wide autonomy), tries at present to regain autonomy and is in European Free Alliance
  3. different regions have articles about names "national football team" - example: Catalonia national football team etc
Correct name this "Silesia national football team". LUCPOL 13:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As is clear from LUCPOL's comments (he created the original article), he is pushing the viewpoint of Silesian nationalism, supported by a tiny fraction of Poland's population of nearly 40 million people. The facts are that various regions of Poland set up informal football teams from time to time to play exhibition matches. By definition, these are not national teams. Balcer 14:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I quote: "supported by a tiny fraction of Poland's population of nearly 40 million people" - what? This is Silesia, is not Poland. This can write: "supported by a tiny fraction of Europeans population of nearly 450 million people" - hehehe. Facts are that only Silesia in Poland has soccer representation. Silesia plays also with other country (Poland, China, Tanzania etc). Silesia is the most separate (culture, language, customs, peoples, architecture) region in country. Silesia by majority his history was beyond Poland. This is facts. You avoid facts because you truth hurts. LUCPOL 14:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Silesian Voivodeship has a population of 4.8 million. 0.2 million out of 4.8 million is 4%, still a very low fraction for the region which would be expected to be the epicenter of Silesian national aspirations. I fully agree with you though that Silesia may well be the most distinct region of Poland. But so what?
This is becoming a political debate, which is exactly what LUCPOL wants since he named the article to push a political viewpoint. The simple fact is: there is no such thing as a Silesia National Football Team. End of transmission. Balcer 14:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite. Silesian Voivodeship has a population of 4.6 million (2006, see pl.wikipedia). Nation "0.2 million" is not the full number. This number comes from National Lists General (polish: Narodowy Spis Powszechny). All men were not examined. Coming back to matter: Silesians are ethnic group (+ 0.2 million people in 2002 year officially to declare for nation/nationality), Silesia is region (till 1945 year he had wide autonomy), tries at present to regain autonomy and is in European Free Alliance, different regions have articles about names "national football team" - example: Catalonia national football team etc. Correct name this "Silesia national football team". LUCPOL 15:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Google search finds only Wikipedia mirrors (some in violation of the GFDL, but all mirrors). — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Mickeysoft → Criticism of Microsoft[edit]

The result of the debate was no consensus – Gurch 12:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's any point in having this page redirected anywhere - either Microsoft or Criticism of Microsoft. Speedily deleted twice, the second time by me; deletion was disputed on my talk page. - Mike Rosoft 13:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I would have speedied it also if I were you. It's not appropriate as a search term. YechielMan 01:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's actually a fairly common slang-y way to refer to Microsoft, as a quick browse of Google will reveal. I suspect it would be better pointed (clarified) It should be pointed at Microsoft, but redirects are cheap, and there's a decent chance that someone will come looking for an explanation of this term. I see no reason to delete. This is plausible enough and useful enough to justify the very low cost of a redirect, IMO. Xtifr tälk 03:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, if we can't decide where it is to redirect, it shouldn't be a redirect. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 04:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Huh? It obviously refers to the company! It may have critical overtones (debatable), but it's not a nickname for criticism, it's a nickname for the company. Xtifr tälk 19:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. Cool Bluetalk to me 19:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A somewhat common way to refer to Microsoft, and it wouldn't be unreasonable to search for it. If there's disagreement about where it should redirect, that's no reason to delete it completely. Rather, discuss at Talk:Microsoft. ShadowHalo 22:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not appropriate. This is a term for making fun of microsoft or belittling them, not a real nickname. meshach 03:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • But that's not a deletion reason for redirects in and of itself. Dubya is a redirect to George W. Bush. Serpent's Choice 08:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • And anyway, "Mickey" is just a nickname for "Mike", which the first syllable of "Microsoft" sounds like. I'm not convinced this is intended as derogatory even if that were relevant (which it's not). I've seen and heard it used in a perfectly neutral manner. And frankly, if "Motherfuckersoft" were as widely used to refer to Microsoft as this is, it would be worth a redirect, no matter how offended Bill Gates might be. Xtifr tälk 10:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why would anybody type in "Motherfuckersoft", when it's obvious the real name is "Microsoft" anyways? Cool Bluetalk to me 17:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • They wouldn't; that's an imaginary example. "Mickeysoft", however, is common enough that someone might see it (perhaps even in a comment on Wikipedia) and type it in to try to find out what it refers to. It's only obvious if you already know what it means, which is not necessarily a given. Xtifr tälk 20:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, redirect is useful, and comeone might type it in. Abeg92contribs 22:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Google gives 29,100 for Mickeysoft.just 1 for Motherfuckersoft ... this page, :).I believe that there's more likely that someone will type something in the spirit of Mickeysoft then Criticism of Microsoft, unless you now that,wikipedia has that kind of articles ,this is not given if your new at wikipedia and/or never contributed to it,do you know many criticism articles in Britannica?Speedy deletion where caried without comunity consensus(by definition),because it bothered some admin,it's not very sound justification for a discussion.And again you just repeat that "I don't think there's any point in having this page",is that kind of vote considered valid?What if i had just said "keep,i think there's a point in having this page",would my vote be taken in to account?In my knowledge votes in wikipedia, have to have some kind of justification,not just because you feel like it.Also i didn't appreciated that you needed 3 days to beside to make the nomination for deletion and then forgetting to tell me,that seems sneaky,you contributed all these 3 days,it's not like if your todo list was full for that long,and if theres no obligation to notify the creator of a redirect,that's looks like gaming the rules.--Bip beep 06:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2007_May_16&oldid=1138574908"