Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 May 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 10[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 10, 2018.

Kwark[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 Redirect Kwark and keep Kwork. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:40, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pageview statistics suggest that these are highly implausible misspellings, especially the latter. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:57, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I'm not sure what statistics you've been looking at, but they've got 93 and 16 hits this year respectively spread roughly evenly through the year. They are plausible phonetic representations of the way the subject is pronounced in different accents, and are helping people find the content they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 09:29, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Quark (dairy product) Redirect Kwark to Quark (dairy product) as {{R from other language}} (Dutch to English). See nl:Kwark. Narky Blert (talk) 09:47, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I oppose this suggestion, as the elementary particle is by far the primary topic for English speakers and the dairy product is not known by this spelling in English and not especially connected with the Netherlands or the Dutch language so would fail WP:FORRED. Thryduulf (talk) 10:55, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget Kwark to Quark (dairy product) per Narky. The article lists a few countries where this is popular, one of which is the Netherlands. Legitimate usage should always trump error. Keep Kwork due to the etymology. -- Tavix (talk) 13:28, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've added Quark (disambiguation) to the dairy product's redirect hatnote. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:15, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:11, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget Kwark to Quark (dairy product) per Narky Blert and Tavix above; it's a popular Dutch foodstuff spelled in that way. As long as we've got helpful disambiguating hatnotes on all the various Quark articles, that seems like the most likely initial target, and the two meanings are so radically different that someone unexpectedly arriving in a yogurty article is unlikely to think they're learning about an elementary particle, and may well investigate the hatnotes. Similarly, keep Kwork. In my accent at least (Southern England) Kwork would be a very reasonable phonetic spelling for someone unclear as to what the word they've heard was. Leaving it redirected to Quark which is (reasonably) viewed as the current primary topic for the word seems the best outcome to me. ~ mazca talk 23:29, 10 May 2018 (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.

William & Edward's Excellent Adventure[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 per G7. -- Tavix (talk) 20:24, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See User talk:Qwfp#William & Edward's Excellent Adventure Jason Quinn (talk) 20:20, 10 May 2018 (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.

Wikipedia:WikiProkect Google Inc.[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. Killiondude (talk) 06:24, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible typo. There are no other simular redirects with the "j" replaced with a "k" (eg: Wikipedia:WikiProkect*) — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 19:00, 10 May 2018 (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.

Cuticle nipper/Cuticle pusher[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 May 18#Cuticle nipper/Cuticle pusher

Foot file[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 May 18#Foot file

Toe separater[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 May 18#Toe separater

Pedicare[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 Podiatry. Killiondude (talk) 06:31, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised to see this redirect targeting anal sex as I've only heard the term in the context of caring for feet (skin creams, toe nail clippers, etc) - and google hits seem to suggest that this is the primary topic (and possibly a trademarked term?). The closest article for that I can immediately find is Podiatry but I'm currently undecided whether that would be a good target (although Foot care does currently redirect there). The current target is not unrelated though, the word is form of the Latin verb pedico meaning "to sodomise", and is mentioned at the target as the etymology of "pedicate" at Anal sex#Western cultures. A 2012 comment on the redirect talk page by user:Ugncreative Usergname indicates that it is Latin profanity and suggested retargetting to Latin profanity - and it is currently mentioned there in the "Synonyms and metaphors" subsection of the Futuere: intercourse section. Wikipedia's search results indicate that it also gets mentions in this context at Catullus 16, Sexuality in ancient Rome and List of Germanic and Latinate equivalents in English. Maybe a disambiguation page would be the best bet? I'm undecided on the best course of action so this is explicitly a request for discussion not a recommendation (and it should be remembered that WP:NOTCENSORED does apply to redirects and sexuality topics are not necessarily invalid or inappropriate targets. Thryduulf (talk) 16:07, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The prefix "pedi-" usually refers to either feet or children. The current association is a blatant WP:SURPRISE. And since the prefix itself is ambiguous, unless the plan is to retarget this to Pedicure as a {{R from misspelling}} (I'm "weak retarget to Pedicure", but deletion is preferrable to me due to the ambiguity of the prefix), it's probably best to just delete this. Steel1943 (talk) 16:10, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem with deletion (I knew I forgot something in my nomination) is that the search results using the internal search engine are exclusively about anal sex or the Latin term for anal sex, which is not helpful to those searching for meanings related to feet or children. Those search results obtained using google are predominantly about feet. Thryduulf (talk) 16:55, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Podiatry. I think the term is equivalent to "foot care" which is a redirect to "podiatry". I don't think "foot care" and pedicure are close. Jason Quinn (talk) 20:27, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Podiatry; going by general-purpose search engines, foot care (most of it seems to be used in various formations as a trademark, but some of it is in a generic way) seems to be more common than the Latin word. Wiktionary only gives the Latin word and Dictionary.com isn't aware of it, but you could say they just haven't caught up to this particular rather rare word that's made entirely of affixes and epenthesis. Having to guess, I'd say foot care is probably what more people are thinking of when they put that in the search box, versus curiosity of the Latin word. –Ugncreative Usergname (talk) 00:39, 17 May 2018 (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.

Redirects to Slang[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 except urban slang.
Killiondude (talk) 06:28, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

None of these terms are mentioned in the target article. Readers will not find whatever information they are looking for when searching these terms. Steel1943 (talk) 15:55, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all except Urban slang - I don't see anything in WP:R#KEEP that would suggest that the others should not be deleted.- MrX 🖋 22:50, 15 May 2018 (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.

Wikipedia:Other crap exists[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 May 18#Wikipedia:Other crap exists

Wikipedia:OTHERSHITEXISTS[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. Killiondude (talk) 06:23, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessarily abusive and insulting to article creators and other main article editors of the articles that this redirect is used to refer to Atlantic306 (talk) 14:48, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, I cannot see this being used in a positive manner. Labeling other Wikipedians' work as "shit" and "crap" is completely counter to the WP:CIVILITY policy. -- Tavix (talk) 15:25, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep well used redirect that does not appear (in the uses I spot checked) to be the cause of any civility issues. If anyone does use this inappropriately then the correct course of action is do deal with the person (who is just as able to misuse the primary redirect) not the redirect (deal with the operator, not the tool). Thryduulf (talk) 17:02, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ive seen it often used at AFD in an aggressive and abusive manner and having the redirect gives tacit approval to abuse Atlantic306 (talk) 20:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Only serves to promote battleground mentality without any real upside. I agree with the OP.- MrX 🖋 22:37, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a civility violation. Wiktionary says that shit is vulgar: language considered distasteful or obscene. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:08, 16 May 2018 (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.

Standard Type Services Framework[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. Killiondude (talk) 06:26, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The connection between the redirect and the target is unclear. In addition, per searches of this term on third-party search engines, it seems as though the subject of the redirect could be notable enough to have this redirect qualify for WP:REDLINK deletion. Steel1943 (talk) 14:00, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, added STSF, a {{R with history}} as a disambiguation page, to this discussion as the first nominated redirect seems to be the only existing subject on Wikipedia which this acronym could refer. (If this can be proven wrong, I'll be more than happy to withdraw the nomination of the acronym.) Steel1943 (talk) 14:05, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. "Standard Type Services Framework" does not occur in any article and although the subject is related to computer fonts, the target doesn't mention it. Deletion removes hindrance to search, and any redlink encourages article creation. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:06, 12 May 2018 (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.

Website image[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. Killiondude (talk) 06:25, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The connection between the target and the subject seems confusing and/or unhelpful. Images on websites could be of something that is not a "digital image" itself. Steel1943 (talk) 13:57, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete, but only because I can't find an appropriate target. History of the web browser, History of the Internet, etc. mention the topic in passing but nowhere I've found gives enough to anchor a redirect. It's also possibly ambiguous with website mirrors and website archives, but I don't think a dabpage with enough useful targets could be created (happy to be proved wrong though!). Thryduulf (talk) 17:10, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • HTML_element#Images_and_objects might be a suitable target. Vexations (talk) 21:35, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There's such a large number of things that you can put on a website in image form, and we also have quite a lot of pages that are about the history of / formatting of the internet, that I think deletion is the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 21:25, 12 May 2018 (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.

Punjabi-Mughal War[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. Killiondude (talk) 06:25, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The term "Punjabi-Mughal War" doesn't appear in any reliable sources, and is the creator's original research. utcursch | talk 04:38, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I turned this OR article into a redirect pending clarification from the creator, having been unable to verify the original research myself. Since making that redirect, it has just become a revert war between the creator on the one hand and myself and PamD on the other. It is clear POV nonsense. - Sitush (talk) 04:47, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment note that if this is deleted we will also need to address another related piece of OR at Template:Bhatti-Mughal War. At best, these templates, redirects and articles are discussing minor skirmishes involving the bandit Dulla Bhatti, around whom there is a cult of personality. - Sitush (talk) 04:52, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: no mention of this term in the target article, so no indication that it is a useful redirect. PamD 06:56, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per nom. --regentspark (comment) 14:46, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we just change the name to Bhatti Rebellion. Because it figs the name and sources. But honestly I dont really care, Because now its getting annoying.

AhdBhat —Preceding undated comment added 04:23, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: {{Bhatti-Mughal War}} was speedily deleted per G3. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:26, 15 May 2018 (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.

Rancher[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. While there have been suggestions to disambiguate the redirect, the consensus, after being relisted once, is leaning more towards keeping the page and creating a separate disambiguation page, which is what I'll do. Anarchyte (work | talk) 13:16, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What to do with this? It has been changed to a dab page twice in the past couple of years, and pointed to Ranch (disambiguation) as well. I just undid PRehse, who had initially reverted an IP's dabification, as I think Ranch is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC here, but at this point I think it merits some discussion. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:51, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as a primary redirect to Ranch. Almost nothing on the disambiguation page can actually be referred to as "Rancher" (many titles such as "The Ranch"), and this is consistent with our treatment of Distiller, Runner, and Swimmer, which are primary topic redirects. If there is any change at this title, it should be to create a separate article on the concept of a rancher, comparable to farmer and miner. bd2412 T 12:01, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a primary redirect per bd2412. Rancher Labs is comparatively obscure (and debatably a PTM) and could be dealt with in a hatnote. I checked a substantial sample of incoming wikilinks. All are either obviously about a ranch worker or say something like "Smith is a rancher" with no indication of a different meaning. A quick resolution would be helpful, as 379 incoming wikilinks now take the reader to an RfD tag. Certes (talk) 15:45, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm not sure about the usefulness of this, but I can't see it as doing any harm either. It also appears consistent with a bunch of other things on the website, as stated above. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:21, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate. Such a redirect might be useful from the point of view of creating wikilinks (see Certes above), but I'm not sure how useful it is to our readers. If the reader wants to be taken to the articles about ranches, they would simply type "ranch". So what are readers who type "rancher" acutally looking for? Maybe they don't know the meaning of the word, in which case a dab page whose first line defines it is marginally more useful than the target article, where this definition is buried within the text. Or maybe the reader is looking for specific ranchers, in which case Category:Ranchers is what they need, or – and that's probably the most likely – they are looking for either of the two encyclopedic topics that are actually known as "rancher": there's a type of house, and a ghost town in Montana. I've drafted a dab page below the redirect. – Uanfala (talk) 10:29, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    In view of those other meanings (which I failed to find earlier), a dab is now a viable option. Certes (talk) 11:26, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate; I find Uanfala (talk · contribs)'s point quite convincing. Putting oneself in the mind of someone searching for "rancher", a disambiguation page is most likely to answer what they're looking for. ~ mazca talk 16:19, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 02:44, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If we do have a disambiguation page created, wouldn't we still be in the position having a primary target anyways in 'ranch'? CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:53, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The primary topic of rancher is indeed "a person who own or works at a ranch", and this makes ranch a suitable candidate for a primary target. But this shouldn't be taken for granted, and my point was that leaving the dab page at the primary title would be the better option in terms of usability. – Uanfala (talk) 08:49, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • To this point, no one has bothered presenting any evidence of absence of a primary topic, aside from Certes noting that incoming links all refer to a person who works at a ranch. That being the case, it seems highly likely that a person searching for "rancher" is searching for the same thing a person linking to "rancher" has in mind: a person who works at a ranch. Page views indicate that "Ranch" gets about ten times as much traffic as all other topics combined. I used Rancher (house) as the search term here rather than Ranch-style house because Google searches indicate that "rancher" is used to refer to ranch workers with far greater regularity than it is used to refer to the style of house, which is almost universally primarily referred to in Wikipedia and outside of it as a "ranch-style". I therefore think that the optimal solution in light of the evidence is to have a separate Rancher (disambiguation) page, and either have a hatnote at Ranch pointing to it, or create a new article on the concept of a "rancher" as an occupation (compare Herder, Shepherd, Breeder). bd2412 T 10:28, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ranch hand goes to Cowboy. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:57, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep primary topic redirect to Ranch, and put the disambiguation page at Rancher (disambiguation). Dekimasuよ! 17:38, 10 May 2018 (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.

Ass cancer[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. Killiondude (talk) 06:25, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

AfD of disamb ended in what I think was a very clear consensus to Delete but instead it was redirected as a sort of 'no consensus' middle-ground. So, I will take it here. Unhelpful, non-scientific, non-serious term. Created as a joke, part of an internet meme. No one wanting to know about anal cancer would type in 'ass cancer.' No person seriously interested in reaching anal cancer would say 'ass cancer.' It is unhelpful and it is not a reasonable search term. Every synonym is not useful as a redirect. This is certainly one of them. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 02:37, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per my comment at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 October 8#Ass cancer. Turns out that my opinion has not changed about this page's status as a redirect after almost 3.5 years. Steel1943 (talk) 02:49, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a second choice to disambiguation. As noted in the AfD, a disambiguation is as correct now as it was last time this was discussed but in the absence of consensus for that (too many people have allowed a personal dislike of the term to get in the way of looking at the evidence) a redirect to one topic is better than deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 17:15, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, silly terms like this that do have reasonable meanings in English are generally best solved by protected redirects. "Ass cancer" does technically mean "anal cancer" if one pedantically translates it, and in general it defuses immature jokes if you just link to the unpleasant real meaning of the term. Sure, you're unlikely to have a doctor telling you that you have ass cancer outside of South Park, but the medical meaning of the term is still fairly unambiguous and I'd certainly prefer a harmless redirect to the alternative. ~ mazca talk 23:33, 10 May 2018 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2018_May_10&oldid=1138582416"