Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 25[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 25, 2016.

Main age[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) 22:46, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unlikely as they are different words - would we accept links to page, rage and sage in the "see also" section of Age (disambiguation)? Peter James (talk) 22:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, and Wikipedia:Main Page isn't even a redirect to Main Page, it's magic. Si Trew (talk) 05:02, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that the magic goes with the Main Page. When one is redirected to the Main Page, the "redirected from" notice is suppressed. Deryck C. 12:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Too much vagueness as the term "main age" can refer to someone's entire adult age, someone's middle-age period of adulthood, to a civilization's growth and expansion period, and so on... it's better to just get rid of the link. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:40, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. -©2016 Compassionate727(Talk)(Contributions) 12:53, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vague --Lenticel (talk) 00:23, 27 February 2016 (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.

Surya Nagar[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 as unopposed. Deryck C. 22:22, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This location isn't mentioned at the target article. It's mentioned in a few other places, but I'm not sure where it might be best retargeted. There might be a case for redlink, since populated places are automatically notable, though it may be better treated in another article (Ghaziabad district, India?). This was described as a "colony" when it was created as a stub, but I don't know what that means in this context. It doesn't seem to fit any use at Colony (disambiguation). BDD (talk) 21:10, 25 February 2016 (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.

Walrus milk[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 6#Walrus milk

Gyunyu[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. Deryck C. 22:21, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FORRED. I don't know what language this is, but no language has an inherent connection to milk. BDD (talk) 17:05, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Google Translate thinks it's Japanese equivalent for ぎゅニュ which it translates to "Giyunyu". Which doesn't help at all. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:07, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It's indeed a (diacriticless) transcription of a word for milk in Japanese ja:牛乳, but in English it's the actual name of no encyclopedic topic and a partial match for a bunch of stuff, so we should show search results. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 03:19, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. -©2016 Compassionate727(Talk)(Contributions) 12:54, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above reasons --Lenticel (talk) 00:35, 27 February 2016 (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.

Shenae[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 8#Shenae

Wobbly H[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, default to keep the two items named by Guy1890; delete all others. Deryck C. 00:11, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Surprise surprise, Sex position is one of those articles with a ton of junk redirects, including some Neelix hyphenation play. None of these positions (I assume), or the one sex toy, are named at the target article, and they probably shouldn't be. (Also, "Wobbly H" sounds like a rapper.)

(I really should've nominated these yesterday, huh?) --BDD (talk) 18:53, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the junk, but some of these may require in-depth field research to be absolutely sure. Does Neelix hyphenation play lead to Wankstains? (no I did not make this up, he did!) Legacypac (talk) 19:35, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - "Stand and carry", "triple penetration", and "wheelbarrow position" are all real things, which I could link to and start to detail but I'd really rather not. I'd encourage doubters to just use whatever search engine they see fit in the manner of which they see fit to peruse the evidence on their own time. The other links appear to vary greatly in quality to the extent that this discussion really should be broken up. Some of them appear to relate to highly peculiar definition-type questions (One may ask: "To what extent does tab A have to just approach fitting into slot B completely, or does B have to even be a 'slot' in the first place, to count as a 'penetration' in the one-two-three-four-etc tally?") and others seem to be nonsense (One may ask: "Is this metaphorical use of 'oil drilling' a failed attempt at stand-up comedy?"). CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:38, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 16:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Triple Penetration (as I see no reason for this spelling) and also Wobbly H, Reverse piggy-back position, Reverse piggy-back, Drilling for oil (sex position), Drilling for Oil (Sex Position), Cleaning the Spoon, Triple-double penetration, Quadruple penetration, Quadruple Penetration, Quintuple penetration & Widely opened position (as I've either never heard of them and/or they are likely not widely known sexual positions).
The other re-directs I don't have a strong opinion on at this time. Guy1890 (talk) 07:28, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the positions exist isn't really the question. Precisely because readers could be searching for them, we should delete these, because the information readers seek isn't available. --BDD (talk) 16:46, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding of the purpose of redirects on Wikipedia is that they are to be used for "Alternative names, Closely related words, More specific forms of names", or "Sub-topics or other topics which are described or listed within a wider article". Some reasons for not deleting redirects include that they would "make the creation of duplicate articles less likely, whether by redirecting a plural to a singular, by redirecting a frequent misspelling to a correct spelling, by redirecting a misnomer to a correct term, by redirecting to a synonym, They aid searches on certain terms" or "Someone finds them useful". There are a few Wikipedia pages that link to Triple penetration. Not to get too graphic here, but making someone "airtight" means filling all of their holes that can possibly be filled in the first place. Guy1890 (talk) 06:31, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We can use that as a checklist. Alternative names? No, none of these are simply synonyms for "sex position". Subtopics which are described or listed at the target article? No (note emphasis). Are they making the creation of a duplicate article less likely? Well, the best you can say is that an article on one of these positions could be merged into the target article, but that would be because it was a subtopic, not a duplicate. Does someone find them useful? I kind of doubt it. --BDD (talk) 17:14, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand that you are working hard in support of your nomination (which I overwhelmingly agree with BTW), but this is getting a little ridiculous at this late date. The only two terms that I support keeping at this time are, in fact, "specific forms" of sex positions, which is an article that can obviously be expanded to include descriptions of them (in detail if needed - I even pondered doing it myself, but I wanted to see how the outcome of this discussion panned out first). Having this kind of information in the sex postion article would obviously "make the creation of duplicate articles less likely". The terms also obviously aid in "searches on certain terms". Also, I, for one, "find them useful", and I've already shown clearly that one of them is already being used a little on Wikipedia. Guy1890 (talk) 08:26, 7 March 2016 (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.

Not Sure[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 4#Not Sure

List of ancient civilizations[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, and refine target to Civilization#History. --BDD (talk) 22:03, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RFD#D5 nonsense, WP:REDLINK. Target is not a list of ancient (or modern) civilizations. I couldn't find a better target. Neither is linked internally; stats are temporarily unavailable (HTTP 503).Si Trew (talk) 21:57, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per redlink. Could be a good article but these were never an article, just redirects. Legacypac (talk) 22:01, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We do have Category:Ancient civilizations. Retarget there? Si Trew (talk) 22:27, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or refine. Civilization#History contains a list of ancient civilizations. -- Tavix (talk) 23:31, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget. I prefer the idea of retargeting direct to the category page but those are not favored much anymore. (I don't know why.) Tavix' section-retarget is an okay second choice. Rossami (talk) 03:48, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Category:Ancient civilizations. I guess people dislike R's to categories as WP:XNRs, but since categories are in a user-facing namespace, I don't see the problem, providing the category is reasonably well-maintained (but that's just as true of lists, DABs and so on). Si Trew (talk) 03:01, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, refining the redirect to specifically go to Civilization#History. I just searched for "List of ancient civilizations". The list that provides what I wanted, a list of civilizations broken up by time period and region of the world, is located at Civilization#History. The page Category:Ancient civilizations appears to be a redirect, so this certainly shouldn't redirect there. The page that category redirect to is Category:Ancient peoples, but that seems much less useful than the list at Civilization, since the category isn't organized by time period and region, and also since the category isn't limited to pages on ancient civilizations. Calathan (talk) 21:07, 26 February 2016 (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.

Civilises[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. Deryck C. 00:07, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not convinced these Nellix redirects are well targeted. Seems like a narrow topic for a dictionary word. Looking for wider input. Legacypac (talk) 17:07, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the third (which already goes there). I've rcatted them all. Si Trew (talk) 21:45, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
These make me think of training kids to be civilized. Legacypac (talk) 21:58, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in the distinction between civilization, civil behaviour, and living in cities, they should be deleted -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 04:35, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There us a DAB for those at Civil. But whatever we do, I think these should all have the same target. Unless I missed it, Civilization isn't on that DAB (yet). Si Trew (talk) 05:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:05, 25 February 2016 (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.

Wiki main page[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) 14:26, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The title does not specifically refer to Wikipedia, and no target could be found about main pages on wikis in general. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 04:42, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Home page could be a possible retarget, but it's more general than wikis. ansh666 04:47, 25 February 2016 (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.

Hungarian Revolution of 2010[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) 14:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No incoming links, very few page views, not mentioned at target at all, no mention in media at all. Delete. ansh666 01:39, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems like a WP:SURPRISE. -©2016 Compassionate727(Talk)(Contributions) 14:29, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: in 2010, I created this redirect because Fidesz which gained two-thirds majority, called the election as "revolution" or "polling booth revolution" (Hungarian: fülkeforradalom) in 2010 speeches and statements. By now, they are "forgotten" this phrase. --Norden1990 (talk) 23:16, 28 February 2016 (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/2016_February_25&oldid=1037901795"