Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 February 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 18[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 18, 2015.

Battle Ice[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. JohnCD (talk) 16:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect was declined for speedy deletion in 2008, but I'm having some trouble understanding its usefulness. I'm not finding this battle referred to as "battle ice" in any references I can find. Also, this term sounds more like it should represent the use of ice in battle as a whole, possibly how it is/was used as a projectile, etc. Steel1943 (talk) 22:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd definitely agree with this if it were Ice battle or something. But "Battle Ice"? It definitely implies ice used for battling, or perhaps a command for the listener to combat ice. --BDD (talk) 04:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's Project Habakkuk, UK WWII plan to create warships out of ice. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 05:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Huh... that's very interesting, and maybe closer than the general idea of military operations on ice, but still, would you refer to it as "battle ice" in any way? Do you talk about regular warships being made out of "battle steel"? --BDD (talk) 15:37, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, "battle steel" is used informally in non-technical material, such as in popular fiction involving warships ... -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 08:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Could also be a romantic/poetic term for a sword. Ivanvector (talk) 16:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - partial match, potentially misleading. I see "battle ice" come up in local interest stories about people (firefighters, rescue workers, farmers, etc.) "battling ice" to put out fires, rescue cattle from a frozen lake, and such. Not encyclopedic. I also considered Battle of the Blades or Blades of Steel but not close enough. Ivanvector (talk) 21:14, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm still not convinced we have anything, or really there even is anything, that would typically be referred to as "Battle Ice". --BDD (talk) 17:18, 25 February 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.

Mandy Solomons[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) 17:17, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing about this darts player from the 1980s/90s (or any female darts player, in fact) is found on the target page. An article might eventually be created, but in the meantime it's a very misleading redirect where a redlink would make more sense to readers. Zeyes (talk) 20:04, 18 February 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.

Afro-Asian Bloc[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 Obvious delete of the current redirect, no prejudice against a dab or alternative target. Guy (Help!) 22:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Implausible. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Once upon a time, this redirect targeted Third World. However, I could not find the term exactly as stated in the redirect's title in the article, though there are several instances of the word "bloc". Steel1943 (talk) 23:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Third World. All research I am finding about this term concludes that the two terms are synonymous. Steel1943 (talk) 00:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe DABify. Afro-Asian Rural Development Organization and Bandung Conference (which has a "See also" to Third World) are also possibilities. Si Trew (talk) 04:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unrelated to target. Corporation is a general topic unrelated to any particular blocs. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 06:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget or Dab per Si Trew, there is no reason for deletion here when there are plausible targets. Thryduulf (talk) 22:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Third World seems to be the best option, but the phrase isn't used there at all. Relisting in hopes of clarifying.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Bandung Conference per Si Trew's suggestion, which has the correct focus and enough content to capture several possible interpretations of what a reader might actually be seeking via Afro-Asian Bloc. DABifying various articles (such as AALCO and the aforementioned AARDO) that focus on African-Asian relations but are only (at best) marginally related to the idea of a "bloc" might well only confuse further. Zeyes (talk) 20:38, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, but not opposed to dabifying. I can see the intent of this being synonymous with the Third World, but that also appears very misleading. The great majority of Asia, at least by land mass, was not part of the Third World. Some of these other topics could be referred to with the term "Afro-Asian", but not really "Afro-Asian Bloc", IMO, so I'd rather leave this to search results. I'm not sure how likely a search term it is anyway. --BDD (talk) 17:17, 25 February 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.

Secular-progressive[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 all to Culture Warrior#The Secular Progressive Movement. I'll take care of moving these. While some of these terms predate the publication of Culture Warrior, redirects to progressivism are not suitable due to concerns about the degree of reliable coverage as a general concept outside of this book. I, JethroBT drop me a line 01:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vague. Just seems questionable to me. Might suggest a POV. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Steel1943's suggestion is interesting, so I'm adding the similar redirect here and hoping to get a bit more discussion. I know that "secular progressive" is a general epithet used by the American political right for the American political left. Culture Warrior may have coined the phrase; I'm not sure. It may also be the most prominent work to use the phrase.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. BDD, I added Secular progressive to this nomination as it would also be affected by the outcome of this discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 23:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, hey, I was engaging in what I call talk page archaeology (something I've been meaning to write up sometime), and I found that "secular-progressives" was taken to AfD back in December 2006. It was closed as merge to Bill O'Reilly (political commentator), but the closing admin wisely just redirected instead of waiting for someone to merge. Since it doesn't appear that a merge ever took place, deletion is an option. I'm not saying it's necessarily the right one, but it need not be taken off the table. --BDD (talk) 17:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget all to Culture Warrior#The Secular Progressive Movement, and remove the resulting self-redirects. O'Reilly clearly invented this: a "secular progressive" is anyone with different religious ("secular" vs. O'Reilly's Christian) or political ("progressive" vs. O'Reilly's conservative) views than O'Reilly's own "traditional" viewpoint. It is misleading to suggest that he meant progressivism exactly. Ivanvector (talk) 17:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Furthermore, no articles link to any of these redirects. Keeping them as redirects to O'Reilly's article discourages someone trying to create an article about this conservative talking point as though it's a real political movement. Ivanvector (talk) 17:53, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have created Secular-progressives, and have added it to this nomination. (I also linked the phrase in BDD's comment above so that other editors can see the connection.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:26, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, while many of the top hits for the term in books are to O'Reilly's book, and to several books published by self-publish publishers (this not reliable sources) or to iUniverse (another self-publisher), there are other usages of the word such as:
Alfred L. Castle (January 2004). "Henry Castle and Secular Progressive Reform". A Century of Philantropy [sic]: A History of the Samuel N. and Mary Castle Foundation. University of Hawaii Press. p. 21. ISBN 978-0-8248-2873-8.
Alex Schulman (23 June 2011). The Secular Contract: The Politics of Enlightenment. Bloomsbury Publishing USA. p. 6. ISBN 978-1-4411-8467-2.
Karin Fry (5 June 2014). Beyond Religious Right and Secular Left Rhetoric: The Road to Compromise. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 50. ISBN 978-1-137-40826-6.
So while O'Reilly may have repopularized the term, it appears to have been used before O'Reilly resurrected it and perhaps changed the popular definition of it to one more closely resembling his usage. Therefore, it could be argued that it can be its own subject.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would have to be, yeah. Redirecting to progressivism just doesn't work. Secularism and progressivism in the United States may have a lot of overlap right now, but that wasn't always the case and may not be in the future. And even today, there are secular conservatives and religious progressives. If those sources discuss movements that were "secular-progressive" by design or intent, we may have something there. If they're just movements that happened to be secular and progressive, it would probably be synthesis. It's sort of a fine distinction. Does that make sense? --BDD (talk) 20:46, 25 February 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.

Legal stone[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 Obviously this title is tendentious. No good case is made for a dab page since there is no evidence of widespread currency for this term to overcome the concerns of POV-pushing. Guy (Help!) 22:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This page was created as part of a pattern of disruptive editing, in a system-gaming attempt to "rescue" the article customary stone. The term "legal stone" exists only in expressions such as "The only legal stone in the UK now is (14lbs)". It is not a plausible search term (it would be probably be called a "statutory stone"). The various facts about the different values of "stones" are covered in the stone (unit) article. Imaginatorium (talk) 19:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The phrase legal stone appears in numerous works which I came across while browsing sources for the article customary stone, which is a contrasting concept. It made sense to cover them together and so I created a redirect. Here's an example from Flax and Its Products in Ireland, "By some singular perversity, flax is generally sold by a stone (illegally so called) of 16 lbs., while the farmer probably pays for the scutching by the legal stone of 14 lbs., or by an old-fashioned weight of 24 lbs., called the Scotch stone." The word scutching is new to me but I find that we have an article for it: scutching. Such terms may be archaic now but Wikipedia covers historical topics as well as recentist stuff like bromance and there's plenty of room for it all. Redirects are cheap and so I'm not seeing the problem here. Andrew D. (talk) 19:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate to the legal-defined measurement unit of "stone", the legal practice of "stoning", the legal documents written on stones, such as the Stele of Hammurabi -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 06:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate as above. Nothing links to it at the moment. Without prejudice, I've made a (not very good) draft at Draft:Legal stone. Si Trew (talk) 19:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The AfD for Customary stone closed 12 February (today) with deletion as the result. Nobody at that discussion pointed out this concurrent discussion. Si Trew (talk) 07:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's a bit misleading as is, since the target article says there wasn't a legal definition of stone. And I can only make any of the alternatives actually called "legal stone" with some really circuitous thinking. Like, "The Code of Hammurabi was written on rock. This 'legal stone' governed the people of Babylon..." In cases like this, where you can only string together some concepts that have something to do with law and stone, readers are better served seeing search results than playing guessing games with us. --BDD (talk) 19:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BDD. I think a disambiguation page would lead to a lot of partial title matches, and not a lot of help to someone searching for this topic. Tavix |  Talk  21:00, 18 February 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.

Israel and the Palestinian territories[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 February 25#Israel and the Palestinian territories

Motes[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 Mote. --BDD (talk) 17:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PLURAL - there is no WP:PT for Mote, and the current target uses the singular. Plural should be redirected to the dab, and incoming links disambiguated. I've created Mote (sensor) and used it in the dab. Widefox; talk 09:47, 18 February 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.

User:2.122.129.77/Sound of Guns (Band)[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) 17:10, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Old redirect prior to move. No idea why the editor made it a subpage of this IP address. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:34, 18 February 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.

User:79.182.36.213/sandbox[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) 17:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Old redirect prior to AFC for article that became Vitreography (art form). Ricky81682 (talk) 06:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I see no reason to keep this redirect. The only links to it are related to this discussion. The creator of the page has a link to the mainspace article on his/her talk page, so won't need this redirect to find it.—Anne Delong (talk) 12:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per WP:G6 (housekeeping) or WP:G13 (stale draft). Ivanvector (talk) 21:09, 23 February 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.

What is the date of the first day of each season[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) 17:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because the correct answer would either be Solstice (Summer or Winter), or Equinox (Autumn or Spring). We can't redirect to both. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:57, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WikiDan61 turned the page into a redirect. --Mr. Guye (talk) 02:03, 18 February 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.

Foreign relations of South America[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 February 25#Section heading

Gawd[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 withdrawn. --BDD (talk) 18:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really? People only use this interjectionally. Kind of makes a mockery out of the target. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Withdrawl. I immediately withdraw this because it is a plausible misspelling of a word that someone may only have heard. --Mr. Guye (talk) 01:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:CHEAP and it is a euphemistic spelling for god to avoid taking the Lord's name in vain. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 06:35, 18 February 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.

Popstar[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 Pop music. --BDD (talk) 17:07, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Too vague. There is no place that talks specifically about celebrities of music. This has to go somewhere, though. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:09, 18 February 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.

Money and fame[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 February 25#Money and fame

Nonbusiness[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) 17:02, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Contradictory. Not helpful. Mr. Guye (talk) 00:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Mr. Guye. m'encarta (t) 03:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tag {{R from antonym}} -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 06:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unless we are going to add nonapple and nonskyscraper and nonskateboarding, etc. The Business article doesn't have a section describing what isn't a business. People looking for information about a business won't type this, and those looking for the opposite won't find any information.—Anne Delong (talk) 12:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete (Non-keep :P) since the target article doesn't define what a nonbusiness is. The closest target that I got is State income tax#Nonbusiness income. We do have a partial title match at Nonbusiness Energy Property Tax Credit. --Lenticel (talk) 03:18, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neelix, do you remember what you were thinking when you made this? Was it along the lines of the topics Lenticel mentioned? It made me think of work aversion or something, like a position against business. Anti-capitalism? Not exactly. --BDD (talk) 04:09, 20 February 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.

Human bites[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. I know, we ain't nothin' but mammals, and humans are mentioned at the target article, so this is kosher. This aspect of the article should be expanded, however. --BDD (talk) 16:42, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Contradictory. Mr. Guye (talk) 00:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per lede "An animal bite is a wound received from the teeth of an animal, including humans". The article could use some expansion though. --Lenticel (talk) 00:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Lenticel. Humans are part of Kingdom Animalia, so how is this contradictory? -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 06:40, 18 February 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.

Buhok[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) 16:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hair is not exclusive to the Philippines. Mr. Guye (talk) 00:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete since I found foreigners with hair as well ;) --Lenticel (talk) 00:57, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOTDIC Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary. General topic with no particular affinity for the Philippines -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 06:41, 18 February 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.

Asian Hair[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) 16:40, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does not specifically talk about the hair of people of Oriental descent. Mr. Guye (talk) 00:28, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete to encourage article creation. We have an article on Afro-textured hair so perhaps we can also develop an Asian counterpart.--Lenticel (talk) 01:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Lenticel. m'encarta (t) 03:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am not sure in what way deleting this redirect would promote the creation of an article; it wouldn't cause any redlinks in article space. However, this redirect doesn't follow the manual of style. "Asian hair" was deleted as incoherent and "Hair of Asian people" was deleted as an attack page. All three were created by the same user. In short, delete "Asian Hair" and the misleading information in its history, and, if a redirect for this topic is desired (I have no opinion about this), create "Asian hair" instead.—Anne Delong (talk) 13:00, 18 February 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.

Velo-[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, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SURPRISE, I think. Mr. Guye (talk) 00:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Latin name for the soft palate is velum and thus the prefix velo- refers to soft palate-related words. Mikael Häggström (talk) 05:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:ASTONISH "velo-" is a prefix used in English for bicycles. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 06:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Velo-, can be related to Latin "velox" (swift), or "Velum" (sail), or the French word "velo" (cycle) is more often used in speed and cycle-racing related words (velocity, velociraptor, velodrome, for example), rather than mouth related words so this redirect is misleading.—Anne Delong (talk) 13:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTDIC. Do we have any other redirects for word prefixes? Ivanvector (talk) 21:04, 23 February 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.

Down-turned mouth[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 Frown. --BDD (talk) 16:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Target of redirect is currently Mouth#Orifice. The "Orifice" section does not exist. Furthermore, the source name is vague and may surprise people looking for Frown or something. Mr. Guye (talk) 00:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, this may fit better as a Wiktionary entry. Mikael Häggström (talk) 06:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to frown. There is some indication from Google that this term is used colloquially to refer to the loosening of facial muscles in aging, resulting in characteristic drooping of the cheeks and corners of the mouth, and a resting frown. I haven't found a medical term for it but "frown" is close enough. Ivanvector (talk) 16:16, 24 February 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.

Smile lines[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 Nasolabial fold. --BDD (talk) 16:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If someone were to search this, they would not find what they are looking for. I think there is a better place for this redirect, possibly something in Category:Mouth or, more particularly, Category:Human mouth anatomy. Mr. Guye (talk) 00:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added a couple of references to the target article. --Lenticel (talk) 00:17, 20 February 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_February_18&oldid=1138580058"