Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 March 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 31[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 31, 2012

Fuck a duck[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 Fuck. Ruslik_Zero 08:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to believe that anyone typing this in would be looking for information on sex with ducks; if they were, they'd be disappointed to find that the zoophilia article contains no information on this particular practice or even avisodomy more broadly. – hysteria18 (talk) 22:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Previously discussed at RfD in Jan 2008. Rossami (talk)
Delete as it may be used for shocking/wtfing Bulwersator (talk) 08:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a long-standing and well-used redirect. We really don't want an article at this title and so a redirect is the optimal solution. It's not an inaccurate target and given the lack of any more specific article, the most appropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 16:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change. should surely redirect to Fuck, as should Fuck my old bootsTheLongTone (talk) 17:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Fuck per TheLongTone. Not a neutral word. ApprenticeFan work 16:47, 4 April 2012 (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.

Demographics of Greater China[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. Ruslik_Zero 08:15, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Once the move discussion is closed there is no reason to keep this. It's an implausible title for a redirect. Former content was a POV fork, this is only a redirect to blank the POV content fork. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 19:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Shouldn't we wait for the move discussion to be resolved? It doesn't seem to have reached any especially decisive conclusion as yet, so going ahead with deletion discussions seems a bit presumptuous. – hysteria18 (talk) 22:59, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Hysteria18 notes, this attempt to delete the redirect is grossly premature. The move/merge discussion has not even reached consensus on where the content should ultimately reside, much less what content should be there. But even once the discussion does reach consensus, there is no justification for deleting the redirects resulting from the moves/mergers. Redirects to resolve POV forks are a preferred solution. I note, for example, that the page nominated above has history going back to 2004. We have no realistic way to know if any and how much of the content in this page's history was copied to another page. If any ever was, we are obligated to preserve the attribution history in order to comply with GFDL and CC-BY-SA. Second, a title this old almost certainly has inbound links. The potential for link rot is high. Lastly, the title is by no means implausible. It may not end up being the preferred title but what else would you expect this redirect to point to? Rossami (talk) 03:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep without prejudice to retargeting when the outcome of the merge/move discussion is known. Per Rossami, we want redirects in situations like this and we do not want link rot. Thryduulf (talk) 16:44, 1 April 2012 (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.

Sanitized cow anus[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 all. Ruslik_Zero 12:28, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Google search reveals no such term actually exists. The link the page creator cites seems to be a blog-type website where the author sarcastically refers to pink slime by this particular name. CanuckMy page89 (talk), 07:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the user who created this redirect (User:Luciferwildcat) is also behind the following as redirecting to pink slime

CanuckMy page89 (talk), 08:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And Salvage meat, a dictionary definition article. Ain't human nature strange.TheLongTone (talk) 08:07, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They really do seem to have a problem with pink slime. CanuckMy page89 (talk), 08:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I have a lot of interest in the pink slime article and as such have participated in cleaning up the propaganda in the article that until recently mirrored the corporations "pink slime myths" propaganda website. It is common practice to have redirects for slang terms that are not actually used in the article itself and several blogs and members of the public are now using the term "pulverized cow anus" and similar terms are mentioned on the Drudge Report. "Ammonia soaked centrifuge separated byproduct paste" is literally what pink slime is as described by the company itself and is cited from The Daily Show report both in line and in reflist as is bovine velvet, "baba rosa" is also cited and is what pink slime is called in Spanish and is cited, it is also the name of the Spanish wikipedia article on the food substance.LuciferWildCat (talk) 08:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Surely the 'pink slime' article is a good candidate for merging into Mechanically separated meat. Mmmm, snouts and entrails, as Homer Simpson says.TheLongTone (talk) 08:25, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is the English Wikipedia, and Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary. Why are you adding terms in other languages? 70.24.244.198 (talk) 04:03, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonsense, bordering on outright vandalism. More of the BLBT jihad from the same user. Horologium (talk) 12:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I speedied Pulverized cow anus once, and I am about to do it again, because it's (to use an appropriate metaphor) bullshit. Something made up on a bunch of groupthink blogs is not something which needs to be in Wikipedia, as a redirect or otherwise. I support Canuckian89's proposal to delete all of the other redirects he listed. Horologium (talk) 15:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. As above. There are such things as search engines.TheLongTone (talk) 15:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
...& Gray slime and Lean beef trimmings. Busy busyTheLongTone (talk) 15:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It has been referred to as grey slime in the news because without the ammonia is the color it would be, baba rosa is the spanish term used in the media and wikipedia has a policy of redirecting other language names to the right place, lean beef trimmings is yet another euphemism for the pink slime used by the meat industry and in articles itself, centrifuge...paste, was used by the daily show and someone may try and search the term, and a redirect sends them to the logical destination, it is not an endorsement of the term simply directions to the right terms and right article in a logical fashion, pulverized/sanitized cow anus are the same but if consensus is that its unnecessary that is okay, however the other terms are well cited in reliable third party sources especially baba rosa, the shorthand lean beef trimmings, they are academically relevant to link to this article.LuciferWildCat (talk) 20:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete cow leather is used for many things; isn't cow anus used in hotdogs? gray slime could be the nanotech apocalypse; why are we having a Russian redirect? "Rosa Schleim" ,"Baba rosada" ,"Viscosidad rosa" ,"粉紅肉渣" are also not English; "Beef is beef" is used for genetically modified beef. "Ammonia soaked centrifuge separated byproduct paste" is a description of rendering (animals) -- 70.24.244.198 (talk) 02:59, 2 April 2012 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2012_March_31&oldid=1138578417"