Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 October 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 24[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 24, 2016.

Rumson Polo Club[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 November 4#Rumson Polo Club

Boycott of Muslim goods[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.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:39, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article discusses a boycott of Danish goods by Muslims, but not a boycott of Muslim goods. I can imagine that there were some boycotting of Muslims goods that took place during this ordeal, but I doubt this would be the most noteworthy boycott of Muslim goods in history. -- Tavix (talk) 19:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - The history of economic boycotts against Muslims is a broad concept that might deserve its own article. Still, I'm not aware of the kind of historical research being out there to make that page workable. At any rate, this current redirect ought to be gotten rid of. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:46, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as misleading. And maybe having it as a redlink will encourage creation of the article CWM describes, if it turns out to have enough scholarship on it. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 20:30, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to encourage article creation. Seems to be a promising potential article --Lenticel (talk) 00:43, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

JustinTimberlake/J.T[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.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:39, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Old redirect that isn't explained why it was retained with no space between the names and an extra slash to their initials. Was this how he was credited on some albums and singles? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:06, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I don't see evidence that he was credited this way. There's also the fundamental question of "Is it helpful?", which this redirect doesn't at all seem to be. People can just search the man's name. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:48, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as implausible. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 06:15, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Apparently created as a fork when the creator's changes to the actual article were reverted, and then redirected in lieu of deletion. As for the title, when this article was created it had only been about 18 months since Wikipedia disabled CamelCase autolinking and mainspace subpages, and there were other wikis around that were still doing that (although technically I guess there still are). So there might have been some connection there. But perhaps Graham87 has some insights here. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 14:36, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – unlikely search term and no significant history. CamelCase wasn't used much after free links became available, and by 2003 it was a historical relic. Graham87 15:30, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Shawyer theory[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. Deryck C. 15:42, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such theory; not a common name for the target article or any nouns in it. – SJ + 21:16, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep ((edit conflict) with User:BDD while moved from 5 to 6 Oct.) The article pretty much solely describes Roger Shawyer's inventions, proposals, and how and why they do or do not work. I think this is a reasonable search term. The noun "Shawyer" crops up a lot in that article, and there is an RS quote from a former director of "EADS Astrium, who stated: "I reviewed Roger’s work and concluded that both theory and experiment were fatally flawed". Yes, "theory" is pushing it a little, but seems to me a perfectly reasonable search term.Or are you arguing that because the theory is wrong it is not a theory? The infobox says the "Theory violation" is Conservation of momentum, Newton's Third Law. The fact that pretty much nobody believes the theory doesn't mean it ain't WP:N and WP:RS and WP:V. Some strange people don't even believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but we still have an article abut Him. I note it was a double redirect via EmDrive which is piped, I think, in the article: back to itself. I've discussed this in the past and taken those kind of things as R3 or something but consensus is that only applies to a redirect literally to itself, not via a hop through another page. Si Trew (talk) 23:11, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 21:40, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • hang on... non-admin User:Tavix is relisting? I suppose nothing is in the rules to say a non-admin can't. Decorum is that usually admins relist. A non-admin can do the gnomework, for example referring us to the discussion from which it has ben hoist. I deign to Tavix, but if you're gonna do it, do it properly. I will sort out the mess on this hoist as non-admin. Si Trew (talk) 08:47, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Personal attack aside, anyone can and is encouraged to relist discussions. -- Tavix (talk) 13:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @SimonTrew: If you didn't notice, I've also began to relist discussions. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 22:14, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Tavix is an admin. Pppery 20:13, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    He's not the admin! He's a very naughty boy! CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:31, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 14:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm seeing that all this gets described by reliable sources in ways such as "The thrust of the theory, as Shawyer explained" (see here for an example). So, even if the exact term "Shawyer theory" isn't correct, it's a reasonable approximation for a layman reader to make from the context. We probably should keep this. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:49, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per CoffeeWithMarkets. Seems like a plausible way to search for this. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:40, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Worthington College[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 November 10#Worthington College

Maju Pulu Kita[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/keep as proposed by Tavix. Deryck C. 12:20, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Neelix redirects). Not sure. These are mottos for the various territories in, respectively, Malay, English and Portuguese (as stated in their infoboxes). Do we generally have redirects to mottos? Isn't that what the search engine is for? In God We Trust and Dieu et Mon Droit are articles about the mottos, but what's the rule of thumb on having them as redirects? Would we maybe have the English ones but not the foreign-language ones?

These three are only mentioned in the infoboxes and not elaborated (or even mentioned) in the body of the article. That probably makes a difference. There are other Neelix Rs with this pattern, so I'd like to get a broad consensus on what to do with them generally, rather than clutter RfD in the future as I come across them. Si Trew (talk) 21:50, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to see investigation of other mottoes. How many others redirect like this?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:33, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the first one and retarget the last two to Emblem_of_Guinea-Bissau. These are reasonable search terms, we want to get the reader to what they are looking for, since we have one of these terms mentioned somewhere, we should rather point them to somewhere that it will help them rather than mislead them. If we don't have what they're looking for, on the other hand, we shouldn't provide them a vague article where it does not explain what the term means. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 02:43, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget the Bissau-Guinean redirects to Emblem of Guinea-Bissau per Champion. Keep Maju Pulu Kita. A few possible reasons I could see people search this term include: 1) wondering what it means, 2) wondering which language it is, or 3) which country it is associated with. All three of those queries would be answered at the target article. -- Tavix (talk) 21:46, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Champion and Tavix, why the emblem article? As far as I can tell, the motto is included in the emblem ("The red banner contains the national motto"), but still has significance on its own. That is to say, the country's legislature could decide tomorrow that they no longer have an official emblem, and this would not deprecate the motto in any way. --BDD (talk) 20:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, it's the article that has the most information about the motto, which is the reason I think it's the best target. I'm open for better ideas though. -- Tavix (talk) 20:35, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This may be worth both re-listing and also trying to seek opinion on from individuals with expertise/knowledge about these places directly. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:19, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 11:22, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget/keep per Tavix. That sounds like the best solution for readers. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:51, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep all, absent anything else to go by. The motto may be discussed more on the emblem article, but that's not necessarily where the bulk of the information should be. I'm not thrilled with the status quo, though. --BDD (talk) 21:38, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Rabbits and Hares[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 Leporidae. --BDD (talk) 21:35, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:XY. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 04:38, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

End of the Sun[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 Sun#After_core_hydrogen_exhaustion.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:47, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure what this refers to. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 04:35, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Türkiye Respublikası[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) 21:32, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mixture of Turkish and Azeri name, implausible. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 04:25, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Week Keep. This spelling is the official name of Turkey in the Gagauz language. The Gagauz are an ethnic group split across Turkey and some neighboring countries. The Gagauz edition of Wikipedia has had this spelling in the lede for the 4 years it has existed.[1][2]
    The relevant policy here is WP:R#DELETE which says redirects from a foreign language title to a page whose subject is unrelated to that language (or a culture that speaks that language) should generally not be created. It's a bit borderline, but the name of the country where they live is maybe sufficiently related. If these two redirects are kept then a redirect should probably also be created at Türkiyə Respublikası. It's another variant that came up a lot when I Googled Türkiye Respublikası. Alsee (talk) 08:13, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Alsee. If a significant number of people who live in a country call it by a certain name, we ought to have a redirect for it. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 20:35, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the second one. There is evidence that the first is Gagauz, but not that the second means anything. Gorobay (talk) 20:04, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both per Alsee, and create others in this language. The second one would simply be the first with the diacritic that is less commonly typed replaced with its non-accented equivalent and is fine per WP:DIACRITICS. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:44, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

A Peach[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.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:39, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have similar redirects. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 02:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Very strange redirect. We don't want a half million redirects like this covering every article for a noun. Alsee (talk) 09:17, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Articles should be reserved for ones with media titles and meet stuff like WP:THE. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:46, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – There is no need for a redirect with the same title as the target plus an article, and it is unlikely to be of any use to readers. Dustin (talk) 17:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Absolutely not useful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Guys, I thought we only deleted redirects if there was an actual need to (besides settling OCD). Look at WP:RFD#DELETE. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 09:13, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The threshold to keep a redirect is fairly low, but it is still nonnegative. That redirect would not help any reader. I can see a minor inconvenience, in that it violates the MOS on titles; the target article does not, but the redirect might pop up in web search results. TigraanClick here to contact me 12:08, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Brightgalrs, redirects are generally WP:CHEAP but this doesn't mean they aren't WP:COSTLY as well. – Uanfala (talk) 18:42, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, but no one has mentioned any actual reasons (WP:RFD#DELETE). I suppose I should mention my reason for Keep - number 6 in WP:RFD#KEEP. The redirect here is [indefinite article] Peach, another grammatical form of Peach. As an aside, does this discussion about if this redirect should be deleted actually takes up more database space than the redirect itself? Surely there has been discussion about that? Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 00:49, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The space occupied by that discussion will be a sunk cost no matter the outcome, so if that was the reason for deletion (which it is not) it would be too late. For the rest, "article+name" redirects have consistently been deleted at RfD (unlike e.g. "plural form of name"); even if that is not in the letter of the policy, at that point, you would need an RfC to change it. TigraanClick here to contact me 14:52, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:COSTLY, this title has no more affinity for an "a" in front of it than any other object.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 18:06, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Pão[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 Pao. --BDD (talk) 21:30, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not related to Portuguese. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 02:46, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Orange cake[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.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:39, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 02:41, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not mentioned in target. Alsee (talk) 09:22, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – None of these are likely search terms, and at best, should someone actually search for any of these specific terms, they will temporarily be mislead into believing that articles exist at these redirects before being disappointed. Dustin (talk) 17:09, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Some of these appear to possibly have logical targets elsewhere. We do have 'List of cakes', which includes the cake that most prominently (to my understanding) includes quite a lot of caramel: 'Dobos cake'. There's also the 'tres leches cake', the 'three milk cake' which may be known as just a 'milk cake'. I'm not sure, but a bit of searching shows a lot of different wordings thrown around. Someone with more baking experience should chime in here. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:41, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to encourage article creation as with every other entry in List of cakes. People make cakes out of all sorts of food, it doesn't mean it needs an entry. Guava cake is pretty tasty. I wouldn't want to be disappointed by following a redirect to Cake in general. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:54, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all I'm only posting here since someone notified me about this discussion. And here is a fact, back in 2007 I made a bunch of nonsensical redirects with no thought put into them. Most of them are redirects I deleted using the author request deletion tag. And had I known back when I did it that this redirect is just as pointless as the rest of them I'd do that. I'm the guy who made the caramel redirect by the way. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 20:22, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Blaze The Movie Fan: Since no one had touched that redirect until Champion started this RFD, and since as far as I know there's no time limit on when G7 can be invoked, I've gone ahead and tagged it for speedy deletion. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 20:41, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
     Done. -- Tavix (talk) 21:01, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh I see, I thought that if anyone besides me period made an edit to a page it doesn't qualify for speedy deletion for that anymore. Well, glad to know I was wrong. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 22:28, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That's true if it's an edit that contributes to the page's content (e.g., if someone had added some redcats at some point), but not if it's something purely technical or procedural, like an RFD template. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 01:06, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Eye-pad[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 rough consensus is that the hyphen makes this redirect implausible. Deryck C. 10:49, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eye pad points to eyepatch, but I suggest deletion for this for a hyphenated form is not really plausible for either. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 02:28, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Google search [3] shows that eye pad and eyepad means a soft medical dressing to put on an eye, and distinct from an eyepatch. I have started a new article Eyepad. I have put in 3 redirects to it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:17, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I still don't believe the hyphenated form is a plausible search term for that, though. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 04:29, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for hyphenated term. The eyepad article, if it were to be retained, should have a hatnote to iPad up front as it will attract searches by dictation. I think the eyepatch article can handle both; the pad and the patch serve the same function. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:51, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Eyepad, Eye pad, and Eyepatch appear synonymous to me. This hyphen-based way of putting it is clunky. I also support deletion. If we need additional hatnotes in some places, that's a separate issue and easy to fix. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Anthony Appleyard's new page and hatnote. Hyphenation is commonly used in cases like this, even if incorrectly. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:45, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:HYPHEN doesn't seem to support this – it's not a personal name and Launch-pad, Landing-pad, Elbow-pad, Knee-pad, Shoulder-pad, Contact-pad, Control-pad, and Graphics-pad are all redirects (replace the hyphen with a space to make all those links blue: Launch pad, Landing pad, Elbow pad, Knee pad, Shoulder pad, Contact pad, Control pad, Graphics pad). One-time pad is an example of linking related terms in a compound modifier. Per Hyphen § Use in English, The use of the hyphen in English compound nouns and verbs has, in general, been steadily declining. Compounds that might once have been hyphenated are increasingly left with spaces or are combined into one word. In 2007, the sixth edition of the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary removed the hyphens from 16,000 entries, such as fig-leaf (now fig leaf), pot-belly (now pot belly) and pigeon-hole (now pigeonhole). This is a separate issue, but Eyepad is an orphan. That should be merged to Eyepatch. Certainly the various uses including both temporary coverage of an injured eye and permanent coverage of a blind eye can all be covered in the same article. – wbm1058 (talk) 23:24, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

You're The Puppet[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.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:39, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think this should be deleted. It's a redirect to a page that does not mention the phrase "You're the puppet" - and almost certainly won't. MelanieN (talk) 00:24, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Iconic phrase from the debate, plausible redirect. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We won't be helping anyone who searches this term as they will be disappointed considering the term is not mentioned at the target. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 02:23, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The term is not mentioned in the target article. Any reader who already knows that the term is connected to the 2016 election won't be particularly helped, searching in vain to find it on the page. Anyone who doesn't already know the connection is going to be extremely confused why the campaign page came up.
    The redirect may of course be recreated if/when the target page discusses the term. Alsee (talk) 05:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Should this prove to be notable in the sense of receiving significant, long-term coverage, then it will get mentioned in the article. In terms of right now, I agree with the above arguments. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:35, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete was this a catchphrase like "accept the results of this election"? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:55, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This was one of his interjections. When Clinton suggested he might be considered a "puppet" of Vladimir Putin, Trump exclaimed "No puppet! No puppet! You're the puppet! You're the puppet!" While the comment received some ridicule, it did not become a major issue like the hints that he might not accept the election results. --MelanieN (talk) 21:48, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While reported on by many publications, the "puppet" yammering appears to be just a blink-and-you'll-miss-it blip in terms of the many other social and political news that happened in the past several months. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:45, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Google Watch[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 November 4#Google Watch

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_October_24&oldid=1088108572"