Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 December 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 21[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 21, 2015.

Nuzzle[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 soft retarget to wikt:nuzzle. (non-admin closure) sst✈discuss 17:29, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So...this is likely an archaic romanization for the town Nazla in the Gaza Strip, but the only place it is used as such is 15th (Imperial Service) Cavalry Brigade#Third battle of Gaza. A Google search for "nuzzle gaza strip" comes up with basically only Wikipedia and its mirrors. The most common definition of "nuzzle", which has nothing to do with Gaza, is on Wiktionary. I'm not sure what the best course of action is (deletion/redlinking, retargeting, soft redirecting to wiktionary), but I'm pretty sure that the current redirect is not at all helpful to the vast majority of people. ansh666 22:18, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to physical intimacy. I can believe the odd romanization theory, although it is not one of the transcriptions listed at Nazla. I don't have access to the ref for that one usage, but I'm going to pipe the link and see if it sticks. As for the redirect, the physical gesture is far more prominent. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:27, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Ivanvector. Legacypac (talk) 03:15, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect to wikt:nuzzle. It gets enough hits to justify the redirect. Oppose retargeting to physical intimacy. For one, "nuzzle" isn't mentioned there. Second, "to nuzzle" means to touch something with one's nose. That touch doesn't necessary have to be intimate. Third, even if we decide that nuzzling is primarily intimate, it'd be an example thereof, which is the reason we deleted a bunch of redirects to minced oath a few months back. -- Tavix (talk) 04:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft retarget to wikt:Nuzzle per Tavix. Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 15:59, 23 December 2015 (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.

Anarchism in the Falkland Islands[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. Just Chilling (talk) 01:25, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Falkland Islands aren't mentioned at all at the target article. An article at this title was deleted last November; as you can see from that AfD, it opened "There are historically few or no known instances of modern anarchism in the Falkland Islands". I want Wikipedia to be as comprehensive as the next guy, but sometimes there's just nothing to say. BDD (talk) 22:03, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, this is the case for all territories. The issue is that the "Anarchism in X Continent" boxes create redlinks to them. To solve this, the territories are redirected to the main country. Hence if you check Anarchism in Vietnam, you'll find that "Anarchism in the British Indian Ocean Territory" redirects to Britain, etc. Stamboliyski (talk) 22:18, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't there a way to suppress such links, though? Even if there isn't, better leave it red. This is a poor reason to mislead readers into thinking we have content where we don't. --BDD (talk) 22:21, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - if there's nothing to say about it, then a user searching for this topic should encounter a dead end, not be redirected to a loosely-associated topic which also doesn't mention it. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:22, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wp:REDLINK per Ivanvector. Also delete Anarchism in the British Indian Ocean Territory, Anarchism in Christmas Island, Anarchism in the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, etc. This is a poor solution to the technical problem of autogenerated redlinks in {{Americas topic}}, etc. templates. If there's nothing to say at all about the subnational territories, as at the template in Anarchism in Vietnam, then use the "countries_only=yes" parameter. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 02:03, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all the ones suggested by the IP. I suspect that teenage boys chasing sheep would be about the extent of the topic for the Falklands. The only activity in BOIT is US & UK military. Legacypac (talk) 03:05, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. I've added the other redirects for the same reasons. Since it seems like nothing can be said about these territories, I'm suppressing the links using 210's parameter. This should fix the problem. -- Tavix (talk) 04:51, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of redlinks on the America's template seen here Anarchism in Canada. Legacypac (talk) 06:26, 22 December 2015 (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.

En julsaga[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 discussion below has established that this name is the Swedish version of the song which is not mentioned in the target article but included in track listings of several other articles. Deryck C. 21:55, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I gather that this is a Swedish version of the song. I only say that because the target article is in Category:Håkan Hellström songs; neither "julsaga" nor Hellström are mentioned in the body. Välkommen jul has a Swedish cover of "Fairytale" under this name, but appears to be unrelated to Hellström's version, which I can't find a trace of on Wikipedia. Not sure if it makes more sense to retarget to Välkommen jul, delete, or expand the target article to discuss Swedish versions. BDD (talk) 16:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is that song in Swedish ("A Christmas story/fairytale"). Its also Charles Dickens' ghost story "Christmas Carol" in Swedish. J 1982 (talk) 17:19, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's still bound to WP:ASTONISH if we don't explain it. Perhaps a reader can make the logical leap necessary without us stating it, but that's a poor way to build an encyclopedia. --BDD (talk) 03:54, 28 December 2015 (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.

Talk:January 1997[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) 16:39, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion[edit]

These redirects are from moves that have been made per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years#Using archives of Portal:Current events for month articles, and are now unnecessary. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 21:56, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Convert to standard talk pages containing Wikiproject banners for the updated redirects. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:21, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. These are artifacts of the old pagenaming convention. Some of the oldest may still be useful for links. The rest do no harm and create no potential for confusion. Rossami (talk) 02:19, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:02, 21 December 2015 (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.

Gun shop[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) 16:38, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Little-viewed and little-linked redirects that don't make much sense and are not mentioned at all in target article. Not sure if best course of action is deleting (redlinking in case there's the possibility of a legitimate article) or retargeting (and if so to where - maybe Small arms trade?). ansh666 10:59, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also among the same group possibly:

but that seems to be a more specific term. ansh666 11:07, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget all to Gunsmith. I was surprised to learn that there is no article for a store that sells guns. That said, I think that historically, gunsmiths have sold guns in their shops. Additionally, I believe that many gun stores also offer other ancillary services (including repair services), such that the proprietors of these stores can accurately be referred to as "gunsmiths". -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Gunsmith per Notecardforfree. Rational. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:27, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - A store a that sells guns doesn't necessarily offer the service of gunsmithing, these would make reasonable red links. We would wouldn't redirect boutique to tailoring for example.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 02:15, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If I would go anywhere, my first thought is 'Arms industry', because that covers all levels of making weapons generally (from planning in sketches to experimentation with materials to everything else before one leaves a store with a finished gun) and would logically include the process of running a / going to a gun store. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:54, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete so it's redlinked. We would not target McDonalds => Burger or car dealer at automobile Legacypac (talk) 02:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:02, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:XY. In reference to the "retargeting" opinions above, the "gunsmith --> gun shop" connection is misleading: not all makers or those who repair guns have a "gun shop". The act of making or repairing guns is not the same as the act of selling them. Steel1943 (talk) 17:11, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just realized that I may have wanted to state "...per Godsy" somewhere in my opinion. Steel1943 (talk) 17:12, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Godsy: Merry Christmas. I get where you're coming from, but I'd still say to delete because a gunsmith is still different to a person who sells guns; redirecting there could lead to the two being confused more frequently. Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 23:17, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, that would be my first choice as well.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 23:29, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Appearently there is something encyclopedic about -product store - combinations. I checked Toy store, Grocery store, Pet store and they all have articles! So delete to encourage article creation, as useless as I think that is because obviously people can't be trusted to know that a gun store is a store that sells guns. Legacypac (talk) 01:56, 26 December 2015 (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.

Austin Swift[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 general consensus below is that there is too little content about Austin Swift on the Taylor Swift article to merit a redirect. It is also discussed below that we may want to delete to encourage article creation. Deryck C. 22:01, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

seems to be WP:INHERITED. MaranoFan (talk) 14:19, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Xaosflux: Consensus to delete seems pretty clear. --MaranoFan (talk) 15:13, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@MaranoFan: I don't normally work through RDF's, and may be behind on some of the nuances here - I tend to agree that this redirect is not useful as the subject is not notable in the target. A quick search indicates that Austin Swift may be entering mainstream acting and may qualify as a stub article soon ref1 ref2. I will leave this to any other admin to close. — xaosflux Talk 16:15, 28 December 2015 (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.

Snatchers[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) 16:37, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of things that are snatchers, I thought of kidnapping. Too vague so delete. Legacypac (talk) 09:48, 21 December 2015 (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.

Tottelized[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) 16:37, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What was he thinking with this redirect? How do you get this from his name? Legacypac (talk) 09:37, 21 December 2015 (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.

Straddling[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 retargeted to Straddle (disambiguation) by Legacypac. --BDD (talk) 20:24, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can't see any reason for this. Legacypac (talk) 09:35, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The IP editor below has identified a much better target. We should retarget "straddling" to straddle (disambiguation). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:54, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
retargeted to dab - someone can close this. Legacypac (talk) 18:19, 28 December 2015 (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.

Bestriding[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) 16:36, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is just completely wrong. Better target might be Bestride Legacypac (talk) 09:33, 21 December 2015 (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.

Caesuras[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. --BDD (talk) 16:35, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is incorrect - the plural is caesurae. Delete this misleading Neelix redirect. Legacypac (talk) 09:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • A number of Latin words have two plural forms in English: one which is identical to the Latin plural form (-a becoming -ae or -æ) and one which is formed by normal English rules by adding -s, either because English use is inconsistent, or because people do not know the correct way to form the plural of the word. A redirect from a plural -s form can be useful, either as an alternative plural form, or as a plausible typo. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:37, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, very plausible typo/grammar mistake. Most people are not familiar with the grammatical intricacies of a dead language. ansh666 22:21, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As it happens, I came across this "in the wild" at Anapestic tetrameter. It's piped to Caesura directly, but the "Caesuras" form displays. --BDD (talk) 14:38, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ansh666. Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 16:11, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the opinions expressed above. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:23, 28 December 2015 (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.

For this purpose[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) 16:34, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neelix seems to have reinterpreted the meaning of a Latin phrase. Legacypac (talk) 09:26, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You could say it should be deleted ex proprio vigore. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:45, 23 December 2015 (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.

Lighton Synge[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) 15:42, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no good reason for a redirect that omits these two guy's first, second, or third name (or odd combinations of these only. Still working on the Neelix list, so can be speedied. Legacypac (talk) 09:10, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

G6 Neelix Housekeeping per ANI thread - try Legacypac (talk) 17:32, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Legacypac: Thanks! Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 23:12, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Item 1 has been speedy'd by DGG. --BDD (talk) 03:55, 28 December 2015 (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.

Mouse Squad[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 speedy delete, G8. --BDD (talk) 16:12, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects to a comic strip also up for deletion. No evidence these names are used for the comic, and scant evidence for the comic itself. Legacypac (talk) 08:25, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Mice Squad pending the outcome of the target's deletion discussion. Delete the other two; while there may be other notable targets the only one I can think of at the moment is The Mickey Mouse Club which is a ways off. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:40, 21 December 2015 (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.

Reginald Leigh[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) 15:42, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While there is some confusion over his true birth name, no one suggests that he went by his first+middle name. Silly Neelix redirect. Legacypac (talk) 08:22, 21 December 2015 (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.

Alpins method of astigmatism analysis[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) 15:40, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

not significant enough for a redirect. DGG ( talk ) 04:40, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SOunds good to me. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:01, 21 December 2015 (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.

The original page, "The Alpins method of astigmatism analysis," apparently has been abbreviated simply to "The Alpins method" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpins_method). In the original page, there also was a link to the bio of the developer of the Alpins method, ophthalmologist Noel A. Alpins. As I have a COI (as unpaid advocate), I cannot move to reinstate Dr. Alpins' bio, but I hope that I can offer some information here that is germane to the issue. Dr. Alpins is regularly named as a notable Australian by the organizers of Australia Day (http://www.australiaday.vic.gov.au/ambassadors/2016-ambassadors/dr-noel-alpins). More info on Australia Day is at http://www.australiaday.vic.gov.au/did-you-know. Dr. Alpins original bio contained other persuasive information as to his contributions and international reputation. Thank you for considering. Kcroes (talk) 19:13, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kcroes: I see you've been blocked in the past for your advocacy, and the admin who unblocked you, Doc James, only did so because you agreed to stay away from this topic area. It looks to me as though the unblock was ill-advised, since from your talk page it doesn't look like you respect our conflict of interest guideline at all. If Dr. Alpins is sufficiently notable for a biography, then someone else will discover this and write one. You should read the plain and simple conflict of interest guide, and then if you really want to, you can use Requested Articles to ask a neutral reviewer to create an article, or use an edit request to suggest edits to Alpins method. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the feedback; that's all I was seeking. I fully understand the requirements of Doc James unblock. Kcroes (talk) 19:48, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TimedText:Arab Contractors SC[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) 15:35, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unexpected redirect. No one would look for this subject in the TimedText namespace. Stefan2 (talk) 01:11, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Stefan2. Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 12:52, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 15:49, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - utter nonsense. GiantSnowman 18:04, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both - I have added another WP:CNR from project space. A user later banned for sockpuppetry seems to have moved this through several namespaces, apparently disruptively. I'll nominate the ones in Category: space separately. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:47, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That one has now been speedily deleted. --BDD (talk) 16:12, 23 December 2015 (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.

Sex game[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) 15:28, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These specific redirects (created by Neelix) sound like they could refer to sexual practises such as BDSM rather than video games, so they may need retargeting, or otherwise deleting. Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 13:04, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Sex game was once a redirect to a now deleted article, Sex Games (discussion).—Godsy(TALKCONT) 18:04, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - I updated the targets in the template. Neelix pointed these at Pornographic video game which was valid at the time, but that target was moved quite some time ago now, and these had been retargeted by the bot in the meantime, long before this nomination. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:12, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget all to Human sexual activity. Close enough. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:13, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Difficult situation, as it could refer to both (I would interpret them as video games first), but we don't really want to redlink them because we've apparently decided that they're not worth as articles. I'd say keep all as status quo as a reasonable compromise. ansh666 22:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disambiguation per Tavix makes sense too. ansh666 00:27, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per WP:XY. There are too many "possible" targets, but none specific enough to claim these terms their own. Best to delete these so that the reader can try to figure out what they are looking for when searching these terms ... rather than being directed to a specific article. Steel1943 (talk) 22:28, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete these are pretty vague with lots of possible targets. Video games would be near the bottom of my expectations. Legacypac (talk) 03:12, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given the way people have disagreed with my interpretation, I'm now wondering about the demographics of Wikipedia readers vs. editors... ansh666 23:21, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate at Sex game. This is a common-enough search term (~8 hits/day) that we should do something with it. We've already determined two entries from above, but other potential entries could be sex toy, Sex Games: Vegas, Battle of the sexes, etc. -- Tavix (talk) 23:36, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Disambiguation - the search engine handles those looking for Sex Games: Vegas, the term to too vague to list more there per Steel1943.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 00:44, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. These are too ambiguous, and the current target would be a very subsidiary meaning. DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 28 December 2015 (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/2015_December_21&oldid=1037882254"