Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 4[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 4, 2015.

Charles.Marvin Green[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 deleted WP:G7 by GB fan. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 00:15, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Has period in article title by mistake Checkingfax (talk) 19:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Periods are very unlikely typos. Steel1943 (talk) 20:55, 4 September 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.

Hockey on the ice[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 16#Hockey on the ice

Israeli Secret Intelligence Service[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 deleted WP:G3 by CactusWriter. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 00:15, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate redirect with no better target. Based on a WP:FRINGE conspiracy theory about the supposed US/Israeli origins of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The ISIS article doesn't mention it. A CSD seems sensible, but I can't determine a criterion that fits. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • @SimonTrew: On what basis are you proposing that? What relevance is the MOSSAD redirect? Are you basing that on your own interpretation of the combination of words? This is not another name for Mossad. It's what someone said the acronym ISIS "really" stands for, more or less. Here's a metaphor, at the risk of further confusing things :) - It's like if someone said "the CIA really stands for 'Canadians in America'" because of some conspiracy theory about the CIA allowing some kind of illicit Canadian immigration... and then Wikipedia actually redirected Canadians in America to Central Intelligence Agency without the latter even mentioning the non-notable theory. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:00, 4 September 2015 (UÉÉ
  • I am not going to continue this conversation farther. Wwe had lots about ISIS and ISIL and various others, and you are just being WP:BADFAITH here, paently the Israeli Secret Intelligent Service should redirect to the Israeli Secret Intelligent Service, not to the Islamaic State of Iraq and the Levant. [[:]] is a redirect to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant for example, but I take Occam's Razor and need not endlessly multiply examples. Si Trew (talk) 20:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look at this (randomly chosen from the first page of ghits). That is the basis for the creation of this redirect. It's not another name for Mossad. It's an obscure conspiracy theory about the Islamic State's origins. Someone looking for that title would be looking for [an incorrect version of] the Islamic State article, not Mossad. Bad faith has nothing to do with it (and I don't know how to take a statement that I'm "being WP:BADFAITH" -- assuming? acting in?); you've simply provided poor justification for your argument beyond what would also justify redirecting Israel's Agency Kind of Like the CIA or MI5 (i.e. something someone might possibly type in when they're looking for Mossad). Perhaps I'm having trouble understanding what you're saying (e.g. I don't know what "[We] had lots about ISIS and ISIL and various others" means) or perhaps I'm mistaken in my understanding of what constitutes an appropriate title/redirect. It's entirely possible. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:17, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy 'Delete per G-3 and WP:PROFRINGE. This is a rather naked attempt to use the project for the promotion of a fringe, and false, conspiracy theory. It serves no legitimate purpose and should be removed immediately. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, I should've thought of G3. It looks like CactusWriter just deleted it as such, so this thread can probably be closed. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:30, 4 September 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.
  • Comment. Sorry. I wanted to say explicitly that User:Rhododendrites was not in bad faith nor did I take it that way, but I could see it may seem so. I should have expressed myself more clearly in saying so, and I have apologised to Rhodes on that user's talk page, but when someone is wrong, one should own up to it, and I was wrong: as I said at the user's talk page, I should prefer to make a more public apology, and thus I do here. Si Trew (talk) 09:05, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cochrane Database Syst Rev[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 on the database redirects; they will remain as they are. Keep the library redirects. --BDD (talk) 13:45, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cochrane collaboration
Cochrane library

I was doing some cleanup for WP:JCW earlier, and I started updating some of these redirects given some were pointing to the Cochrane Collaboration, and others to the Library. I updated most of them to point to the collaboration, but I have a nagging doubt that what I did may not be the best solution possible, so I'm starting this RFD so we can decide what's the best course of action from here on.

The best solution, IMO, would be to have a specific article on the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and redirect the first set of links to that target. Failing that, however, we need to decide if it's best to point them to Cochrane Library or Cochrane Collaboration. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cochrane collaboration is better to direct it towards...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Almost all of the content in "Cochrane Collaboration" is about the database of reviews. There are a handful of mentions about the Library. I don't really see any advantage in creating a new article about the database, or changing the article's name. The current situation looks fine. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create article for Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Retarget the rest to Cochrane collaboration, as this seems a more suitable target. Rubbish computer 17:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think creating a CDSR article would be a good idea, and that redirecting all the redirects listed under the "Cochrane collaboration" section on this page to the CDSR page would be a good idea as well. As for the Cochrane Library redirects, they should be kept the way they are, IMO. Everymorning (talk) 22:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If there's no CDSR article by the end of this debate, tag the CDSR redirects with abbreviations in them as {{R avoided double redirect}}, which will make it easier to find them if someone eventually does create a CDSR article (e.g. they'll show up in Special:WhatLinksHere). 58.176.246.42 (talk) 03:32, 6 September 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.

市区重建局[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. I discounted arguments based on FORRED, since there's obviously a connection between the target articles and Chinese languages. There's some feeling that the hatnotes currently on each of the targets are sufficient to allay confusion. --BDD (talk) 13:56, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These ambiguous Chinese-language (one simplified, one traditional) redirects point to two organisations with the same Chinese name but different English names. I suggest that we delete both due to the potential of confusion. Both Hong Kong and Singapore recognise traditional and simplified Chinese characters (although HK defaults to traditional, SG to simplified) so I'd argue that WP:FORRED applies equally to both possible targets. Deryck C. 14:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd accept disambiguation as an alternative. Deryck C. 12:25, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (as creator) I have considered this ambiguity at creation, so I also made sure there are headnotes linking between both articles (diffs: [1][2]). I have no objection to any suggestion to better solve this bold introduction of confusion, including deletion or perhaps a Category:Disambiguation pages with Chinese character titles. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 14:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Rubbish computer 17:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think if both places defaulted to the same scripts, a disambiguation would be the best choice, but from the references I've seen, the current way this is set up looks to be a good solution. The hatnotes should clear up confusion so I don't see the benefit of deletion here. -- Tavix (talk) 17:51, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is probably headed towards disambiguation, but questions remain. Which one would be the dab, for one?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, if you keep it the way it is, the hatnotes take care of everything and you don't need to answer those questions. -- Tavix (talk) 17:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[[ i[reply]
  • Delete per WP:FORRED and WP:NOTDIC and WP:USEENGLISH. Not Chinese anyway but Japanese. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and mores is not a translation dictionary.ja:市区重建 is a DAB or "did you mean" page, ja:市區重建局 is red,.ja:市区重建 is a DAB or "did you mean" page, cz:市區重建局 and cz:市区重建 are red. ja:市區重建局 has no interwdata links to either. These are spurious.,I think, but I call on User:Lenticel as the expert here with these. Si Trew (talk) 18:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Si Trew.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 00:50, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tavix. Each version is sufficiently relevant to its target (and more relevant than it is to the other target), the name is mentioned at the target, and any residual confusion is already handled with hatnotes. Per WP:TWODABS, I don't think disambiguation is necessary. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 00:57, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per WP:FORRED. If I were using the Chinese Wikipedia, I would expect to have to search for the Chinese name of the subject I was interested in, even if it were a U.S. Government agency. I don't see why a person using the English Wikipedia shouldn't expect to search for a subject by its English name. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 22:40, 15 September 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.

Lists of endangered languages/UNESCO definitions[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 move to UNESCO definitions of endangered languages, without leaving a redirect. --BDD (talk) 17:50, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article created entirely in good faith, perhaps under the impression that the slash would make it a sub-page. Ran afoul of copyright problems, unused, redirected. However, as it stands it's a highly improbable redirect, so should perhaps now be deleted. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as the article opens with "The following lists of endangered languages are mainly based on the definitions used by UNESCO": seems a plausible search term. Rubbish computer 10:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - While these kinds of redirects do mean that you have to be typing, have the text you need, but then keep on typing... I still see this as being reasonably helpful even if it's relatively improbable that someone would type it out. I can imagine someone searching this or writing this, in good faith, even if it's not likely. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:25, 4 September 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.

Dangit[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. --BDD (talk) 17:46, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The target is a disambiguation page for places and people named "Dang", none of which are also known as "Dangit". Retargeting to Damnation#As profanity might be one option. I guess it depends on the consensus for what to do with all the other minced oaths that have been nominated today. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 12:31, 4 September 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.

Goink[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) 17:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — alleged to be an ethnic slur for people of mixed Chinese & Korean descent, but outside of Urban Dictionary & sources which quoted them I can't find anyone actually using the word this way, it clearly has other meanings, and anyway that topic is not covered by the target. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 12:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak add to List of ethnic slurs#G and retarget there if valid sources can be found. Otherwise, delete per nom. Steel1943 (talk) 15:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Steel1943. Rubbish computer 22:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there are a great number of sources reporting that Urban Dictionary claimed it's an ethnic slur. (It sounds a lot more like something made up in school one day). I can't find a source which outright states in its own editorial voice that it's an ethnic slur, though I'm sure if we trawl the gutter for Buzzfeed-style "You won't BELIEVE how many billion people Phil Jackson might have offended!" sites I'm sure we can find one that was dumb and careless enough to do so. I note also, for example, that "fucking [any real English-language ethnic slur]s" will get you thousands of GHits, but "fucking goinks" has precisely zero, and even the singular "fucking goink" has only four uses an an insult, none of which seem to be directed towards a particular ethnic group. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 00:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Gonk, which is a disparaging term associated with Asian culture generally although not without any specific ethnic implications (just like how a pasty white Canadian can refer to another pasty white Canadian as his "onii-chan~"). I think the only reason we have "Goink" being used by anyone at all is probably a minor twerking of "Gonk" (just like "Go fug yourself" came from, well, you know). CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:07, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, well, after trying to look up more details about where the hell the term "Goink" came from and what it means, there seems to be no one single agreed upon definition. I've changed my mind. Let's just leave the text red: Delete. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:28, 5 September 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.

Rejection of profanity[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) 13:24, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect targeting Minced oath just isn't correct. A minced oath isn't the rejection of profanity, but rather an altercation. The title of the redirect is a bit suitable for a WP:REDLINK deletion in regards to a possible subject for the rejection of profanity in different cultures, etc. With that being said, weak retarget to Profanity or delete. Steel1943 (talk) 06:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - The only logical target would be the general article for Profanity, but even that feels like a stretch. I'd rather just get rid of this altogether. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there appears to be no suitable target. Rubbish computer 10:44, 4 September 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.

Mother trucker[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 Motherfucker. --BDD (talk) 17:39, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These redirects are examples of minced oaths, but the redirects are not identified by subject at the target article. For this reason, the helpfulness of these redirects is questionable since the subject of the redirects isn't identified by subject at the target. Unless good retargeting options can be found for these redirects, I say either soft retarget to Wiktionary (if there is a corresponding entry) or delete. Steel1943 (talk) 06:11, 4 September 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.

Shootdangit[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) 17:38, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is an example of a minced oath, but the redirect is not identified by subject at the target article. For this reason, the helpfulness of this redirect is questionable since the subject of the redirect isn't identified by subject at the target. Unless a good retargeting option can be found for this redirect, I say either soft retarget to Wiktionary (if there is a corresponding entry) or delete. Steel1943 (talk) 06:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • REtarget to damnation since that's where goddammit leads to -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 06:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment not on Wiktionary and probably doesn't meet inclusion criteria there either (wikt:WT:ATTEST). 58.176.246.42 (talk) 06:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to damnation as a plausible synonym. Rubbish computer 10:46, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an implausible synonym for anything in Wikipedia. It's two minced oaths run together in a way that is extremely rare (I get only 93 non-duplicate GHits), with no particular reason to retarget to one rather than the other (why not shit, for which "shoot" is a minced oath), so it should also be deleted per WP:XY. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 12:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per 58 as it is impossible to know what someone is looking for. The stats are less than 1 per day, which is next to nil. -- Tavix (talk) 02:07, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with the above arguments. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:44, 5 September 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.

Strewth[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) 17:44, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is an example of a minced oath, but the redirect is not identified by subject at the target article. For this reason, the helpfulness of this redirect is questionable since the subject of the redirect isn't identified by subject at the target. Unless a good retargeting option can be found for this redirect, I say either soft retarget to Wiktionary (if there is a corresponding entry) or delete. Steel1943 (talk) 06:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment has this ever been used as the past tense form for "to strew" (to distribute)? -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 07:38, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yes, in the King James Bible, new testament, they strewed their Lord with lilies, and indeed Graham Chapman as Brian thus spake in Life of Brian. Si Trew (talk) 19:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm an idiot, that would be strewn as past historic. Si Trew (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget but not sure quite where. No, it is an Australianism for "(God's) Honest Truth". I just happen to know that because "strew" is kinda my mame. Retarget to Australian slang, I think, or something similar, it is just strine. Si Trew (talk) 19:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect to wikt:strewn, where someone can find what they're looking for. -- Tavix (talk) 02:09, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
cack-handed sig by me
I'm not happy with that, Tavix, as the Wikt article just says it is past participle of "strew". We don't have strew here at Wikipedia (and I am resisting the temptation to redirect it to User:SimonTrew so that would seem a bit WP:RFD#D2 confusing. I did declare a special interest here in that it just happens to be how I write my name and my signature, in real life, as "strew". Si Trew (talk) 06:32, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonTrew:, I think I agree with you here. Delete per WP:R#D2. -- Tavix (talk) 20:32, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm deleting my retarget vote. I don't really mind if it is kept, I am sometimes known as one of a pair of trews since I am a twin (though we are seldom seen together, living a long way apart from each other: you'll be glad to hear that one of us is a tall, rich, successful good looking blond, but I am the other one), and so I am used to having puns on my surname and that don't bother me, but I just genuinely think this is confusing and I agree with Tavix it should go Delete. Si Trew (talk) 06:53, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment you might also notice that my surname is about the only one, at least an English one, that you can type on one hand on your QWERTY keyboard. Leaves the other hand free for choking down booze and fags. Si Trew (talk) 07:01, 14 September 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.

By word[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 dabify Byword—thanks to Neelix for doing that—and retarget the rest there. --BDD (talk) 17:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From what I am seeing per research, "by-words" aren't exclusively/always "minced oaths", so there is an WP:XY issue here. So, probably soft retarget to Wiktionary or delete. Steel1943 (talk) 05:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • That statement enforces my WP:XY concern. On that note, I have added Byword and Bywords to this nomination. (I do not think that a disambiguation page would be appropriate due to the lack of a strong connection between the term "byword" and these subjects.) (Withdrew this statement due to now being neutral on creating a disambiguation page, as mentioned below in the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 19:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)) Steel1943 (talk) 06:55, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • wikt:byword means "proverb" WP:POFRED shows that redirects are used for synonyms to target the article where the topic appears. There's no problem here. We can always convert "byword" to a disambiguation page, to point to synonym, nickname, epithet, and proverb, instead of having a hatnote on "proverb". Or repoint all of them to "synonym" and hatnote to the others. At any rate, we have articles on the topics that this is an alternate name for, so wiktionary is the wrong place to go, since content appears on Wikipedia for this topic(s). It's not as if no content appears on Wikipedia, and therefore it should go to Wiktionary, we actually have articles on the topic(s) on Wikipedia. Wiktionary already shows this has strong connections to the topics per POFRED alternate names for our topics. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 07:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create Page / Retarget All To New Page - {Edited} So that we have all four terms going to something that lists the alternate meanings of the word. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create page per CWM. Rubbish computer 10:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • <s{Delete all'> to enable the creation of the page. I'll have a go atDraft:Byword but not right now. I think in Shapkespeare somewher, and certainly used a lot by Alan Coren, ("My name is not dropped in literary circles, I am no byword when plumbers pass by") so sourcing RS should not be too hard. Si Trew (talk) 15:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget all to Byword, which I have expanded to be a disambiguation page. Deleting these redirects won't enable the creation of a new article about the word. If anyone wants to create such an article, they are free to do so while the redirects remain intact. Neelix (talk) 17:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yep that makes more sense, Retarget all. Struck my delete above, Si Trew (talk) 19:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ot tried to but had a bit of sneeiying dunno why, I get hay fever but it is not the time of year for that. Tried again. Si Trew (talk) 19:16, 4 September 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.

Drat[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 15#Drat

Danged[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 15#Danged

'sfoot[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 15#'sfoot

'Sblood[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 14#'Sblood

Egad[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 14#Egad

Gosh darn[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 14#Gosh darn

For crying out loud[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 as {{R from other capitalization}}, to which I shall Rcat, and no-brainer. (non-admin closure) Si Trew (talk) 10:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is an example of a minced oath, but the redirect is not identified by subject at the target article. For this reason, the helpfulness of this redirect is questionable since the subject of the redirect isn't identified by subject at the target. Unless a good retargeting option can be found for this redirect, I say either soft retarget to Wiktionary (if there is a corresponding entry) or delete. Steel1943 (talk) 05:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a minced oath. My mother used to shout this at me when I was six years old, and she did not mince her words(but I have never known her swear, "bloody" is about as far as she gets). I have marked it as R from other caps.
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.

Chrissake[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 12#Chrissake

Gawt deem[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 12#Gawt deem

Jeez[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 12#Jeez

Dagnabbit[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 11#Dagnabbit

What the ****[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 11#What the ****

Fugged[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 11#Fugged

Frig (interjection)[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 procedural close on the first, retarget the rest to Frig (interjection). Thanks, Neelix! --BDD (talk) 13:15, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect(s) is/are example(s) of (a) minced oath, but the redirect(s) is/are not identified by subject at the target article. For the reason, the helpfulness of the(se) redirect(s) is questionable since the subject of the redirect isn't identified as a subject, but goes to an article which it is an example. For these reasons, unless (a) good retargetting option(s) can be found for the(se) redirects, I say either soft retarget to Wiktionary (if there is a corresponding entry) or delete. Steel1943 (talk) 05:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Wiktionary has all of them: frig frigged frigger friggers friggin friggin' frigging frigs. Agree that current target is unhelpful, in particular given the WP:XY issue - it has other meanings besides its use as a minced oath. Not sure whether it's better to soft redirect or delete. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 05:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • REtarget all (excpet "interjection") to frig since there's multiple values there that can take these terms. Add an explicit link to fuck to the dab page for an additional value. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 06:52, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
From what I am seeing on Frig, that is actually false. The only term on there these could refer is the subject of Frig (interjection) ... which, of course, is a redirect to Minced oath and part of this nomination. Steel1943 (talk) 07:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not the pheasant plucker, I'm the pheasant plucker's son. And I'm only plucking pheasant 'til the pheasant plucker comes. Si Trew (talk) 16:14, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's two values, "sexual intercourse" and "masturbation" that appears on the disambiguation page, aside from the interjection value, so yes, there are multiple values there. With the addition of the new entry, that would be another. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 07:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At any rate, "frigs" should point there regardless, as a plural, since it is a list of multiple frig values, they are frigs. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 07:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree I think Frig should go to Frigate, {{R from abbreviation}}, but in civil engineering (or perhaps very uncivil enginnering) a frig factor is what to add in to covertt hat at walls are never square nor cables cut to the right length, or as a good friend of mine once did, being paid by the metre, As a Chartered Engineer once quoted to me, "Do the estimates and add ten percent for luck". Much as I love{{{convert}}, we still have not yet the tag frig_factor there.
If, like my good mate Fred, you get a job and told to do the bannister]s, stair rods and stair rails while his mate did the walls, while you are paid by the square metre, he lost on that one!. But it is not, as far as I am aware, a roundabout way of pretending not saying "fuck". Si Trew (talk) 09:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It's OK to say "Fuck" here by the way. I don't link the word and especially hate "cunt", which women seem more to oibject to, but WP:NOTCENSORED. This discussion would be easier if others were not quite so mealy-mouthed. Si Trew (talk) 10:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget all to fuck as appears to be the most suitable target. Rubbish computer 11:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget all to Fuck - "Frigging" is discussed as a minced oath alternative to "fucking" on that article, so that's certainly a valid target, and also the best one I can see. If there are other valid targets, they can be linked via a hatnote. Neelix (talk) 15:52, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget all. Indeed, and nobody ever looks up frog (disambiguation), cos everyone knows what a frog is. James Thurber has it somewhere as when playing some word game he looked up "dog", to find it means feed-dog, hangdog and so forth. I think he wrote "Nobody ever looks up 'dog' in the dictionary, because everyone knows what a dog is'. (I had an (edit conflict) with Neelix (Nice ta see ya, Neelix) so I hope I have not disturbed any others' comments.)Si Trew (talk) 15:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC))[reply]
No, ho, we cannot do that. Frig itself is a DAB, which doesn't mention its use as going round the houses to say "Fuck" at all. Which considering its long and ancient history, as documented encylopaeidacallay at Fuck, deserves a mention at that DAB. Too many people being too mealy-mouthed here. I rarely swear, but we are discussing swear words, so it is hardly evitable though it may be inevitable.Si Trew (talk) 16:08, 4 September 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_September_4&oldid=1064384154"