Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 16[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 16, 2019.

Cornucopia (god)[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. While the two keep participants make a very compelling argument that has convinced me personally, I nevertheless read a consensus below to delete this unlikely/incorrect/etc. disambiguator ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:31, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what the purpose of this redirect is––"cornucopia" doesn't need disambiguation, and it's not a god. Cornucopia (mythology) would be a more appropriate title, if still unnecessary as a redirect. I recommend deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 23:01, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} is a thing so "doens't need disambiguation" (actually "doesn't currently need") is irrelevant. The disambiguator isn't great, but it's not completely implausible given that mythology is in a large part about gods and this is strongly associated with gods, so it's not a completely implausible misunderstanding or search term. I'll create Cornucopia (mythology) as that is definitely useful though. Thryduulf (talk) 23:29, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per Ivanvector below, thinking of this as a god is actually a lot more plausible than I first though, so my recommendation is no longer weak. Thryduulf (talk) 23:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Misleading disambiguator given the target isn't a god. -- Tavix (talk) 01:57, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tavix. Incorrect disambiguations are often worth keeping but not when they mislead. —Xezbeth (talk) 07:32, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - we also have {{R from incorrect disambiguation}} and {{R from other disambiguation}}, though I'm not sure exactly which one this is. In the various mythologies, cornucopia was not itself a god but was always either created by a god, broken off from a god, or came about through the actions of gods, and was always imbued with godly powers as a result. So the truth in "isn't a god" is a bit murky. A reader searching for it thinking it was a god in its own right would not be astonished with this search result, anyway. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:52, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Target is not a god. Steel1943 (talk) 21:18, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per Ivanvector it's not actually that simple. Thryduulf (talk) 23:16, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • ...I think it is, and I even read Ivanvector's comment before I posted my comment. I just do not see the redirect being a helpful {{R from incorrect disambiguation}} for that reason. If anyone types the redirect into the search bar, the search results will probably be more helpful than forcing the reader to arrive at this redirect's current target. That, and the redirect popping up in the search bar could give a reader the false expectation that we have an article about a god or goddess named "Cornucopia". Steel1943 (talk) 23:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Steel1943. Disambiguators, even incorrect ones, based on free association are more misleading than helpful. Anyone starting to type "Cornucopia" in the search bar will be presented with Cornucopia (the article they're likely looking for), Cornucopia (mythology) (a plausible redirect they'll most likely assume to be going to the same place), but Cornucopia (god) on the other hand jumps out as a different topic and a reader could easily assume it is a different article worth checking out on its own. – Uanfala (talk) 07:04, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Steel1943 and Uanafala: In which case they'll find the article they were looking for and learn more about it. And remember that search suggestions are only available to a subset of people, notably not including those following links (internal or external), those without javascript (enabled), those navigating by URI (many people do do this), some mobile users, and users of some third party tools. None of these people will be helped, and many will be hindered, by deletion. Those thinking we do have an article about a god will read the article and learn, those who thought cornucopia was a god (and frankly it's not clear isn't a god in all mythologies) will read the article and learn. Nobody will be mislead at all. Thryduulf (talk) 10:39, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • My point was the users encountering this in the search box will be misled. Yes, users who do not encounter this in the search box will probably not be harmed. But they won't be helped either: we're talking about a redirect from an (implausible) incorrect disambiguation to a primary topic. We don't have for example Africa (country) for the benefit of those who are under the impression that Africa is a country. – Uanfala (talk) 13:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • ...This search (the search that would appear if the redirect was deleted) looks rather helpful to me. Most of the first few entires are about specific gods and/or goddesses that at one point have wielded a cornucopia. Steel1943 (talk) 13:04, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • The problem is that search results are not shown to everybody when a redirect is deleted - many people are shown a message that the page has been deleted and invited to start a new article and/or invited to search. What you see depends on many factors including whether you are logged in, whether you have permissions to start new articles, how you arrived at the redirect (followed a link, browsed by URI, searched, etc), and what client you are using, etc. I also think that someone searching for or following a link to "Cornucopia (god)" is far more likely to be looking for our Cornucopia article than an article about a god/godess who happened to wield one, so I see no benefit to requiring nearly all users to make more clicks and load more data just to get to where they get to directly now. Thryduulf (talk) 15:36, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • ...That's because anyone clicking "Cornucopia (god)" if it was deleted and appeared as a red link would be forwarded to history of pages at this title and/or recommended to create a page at that title (depending if the reader is logged in or not, of course), which is expected. That, of course, has nothing directly to do with the search bar/function in Wikipedia. If people are trying to search results, they will use the Wikipedia search bar since that's how it's been fir at least since I've been an active Wikipedia editor for the past 7 years. So when an editor is searching this term and not forced to a specific target by a redirect, Wikipedia is telling the reader "Sorry, we don't have an article about a god named Cornucopia (which, to my knowledge, one doesn't exist anyways ... but if one did, that would he a case for WP:REDLINK deletion), but here are the best results we can provide that include the words 'cornucopia' and 'god'". Then, the reader can browse through the results and see such concepts, and/or create an article in the event there is a subject about a god named "Cornucopia" ... and that, to me, seems more helpful that this redirect existing and targeting Cornucopia, and article about the horn-shaped structure that is sometimes associated with Thanksgiving, amongst other thing as laid out in Cornucopia. Steel1943 (talk) 17:08, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • The point is that not everybody does search using the internal search box - many people navigate directly to page titles, they follow links from external sites, they use external search tools, etc. they are not all shown search results directly they have to explicitly ask to see search results. Almost nobody who uses this title (searching in any way or following links) will be looking for an article other than the current target, so instead of getting there with 1 click as currently, they're going to have a minimum of 2 clicks, sometimes 3 and occasionally 4 - literally nobody will benefit from this change and some people will be significantly inconvenienced. Thryduulf (talk) 09:30, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • I completely understand that ... which is why I think all types searches would benefit from this redirect being deleted for the reasons I already stated above, including not locking readers searching the term of the redirect into being forwarded to this redirect's current target ... in addition to the target not being a god. Steel1943 (talk) 20:28, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                • So, instead of taking people to the only article they are plausibly looking for, you want to force them to jump through a variable number of hoops because their search term indicates that either they have very slightly misunderstood the topic they haven't read about yet, or are simply not being quite precise enough in their search terms. Why? How does this benefit anybody? Thryduulf (talk) 10:58, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                  • ...It's not "hoops"; it's "options". These options are not provided when the redirect exists for the reasons I have already mentioned above. Steel1943 (talk) 16:14, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                    • What options are required? There is literally no other article that it is plausible they are looking for. If they oare looking for a god that happened to use/have/be associated with a cornucopia using a search term that doesn't reflect that intent and that god is not mentioned at the target article, then they will just use a different search term and still get to what their looking for with fewer clicks than if we deleted this redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 22:24, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Misleading disambiguator.  — Scott • talk 16:59, 21 May 2019 (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.

Simon Beale[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. MBisanz talk 02:52, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect appears to be the name of a presenter who has worked for Heart radio, but the target doesn't mention him. To make matters worse, there's a possible clash with Simon Russell Beale. I would recommend either deletion or retargeting the correctly capitalized one to Simon Russell Beale. signed, Rosguill talk 22:54, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete SImon Beale (capital I) as an implausible typo. Comment The other one is a lot more complicated, after about 5-10 minutes searching he seems to be one of those borderline notable people who gets little mentions in all sorts of places but little in-depth coverage about him, e.g. Timeline of the Heart Radio Network, Heart Kent, Time 106.8, Trafficlink, Wilmington Grammar School for Boys, etc. There is a very light interview at [1] and another at [2], but journalists seem to like quoting his tweets which makes finding info about him harder. If he had an article or section then a distinguish hatnote to Simon Russell Beale would be best, retargetting this there I could not support as it's likely he will continue to get links from people expecting him to have an article not realising they're going to a different person. Thryduulf (talk) 23:44, 16 May 2019 (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.

Neild's Disease[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 25#Neild's Disease

Abelone[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 28#Abelone

Redirects without mention to Rio Carnival[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. MBisanz talk 02:58, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The rest of the list (141)

These are a rather large batch of redirects without mention at the target. Someone looking for specific information about these terms will not be able to find what they are looking for by using the redirects. Specifically, it's hard for me to figure out what the connection is, but I presume from context that most of these are samba schools that have participated in the Rio Carnival. -- Tavix (talk) 18:35, 16 May 2019 (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.

Francuski kolonijalni imperij[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. I'm not entirely sure what's best, however there was only one editor and one revision, so I think simply leaving a note with the user and date should (hopefully) be sufficient. I have done so. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:25, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Google Translate tells me this is Croatian. Since Croatia was never part of the French colonial empire, this fails WP:RFOREIGN and should be deleted. -- Tavix (talk) 14:17, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:18, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete after attributing. Note a bit of investigation reveals that this is actually Serbo-Croatian rather than Croatian (Google Translate doesn't include Serbo-Croatian; AIUI the whole Serbian, Croatian and/or Serbo-Croatian question gets rather political). It was submitted in December 2005 as an article [3] that was copied to the Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia [4] as sh:Francuski kolonijalni imperij but it doesn't seem to have been attributed at all (the sh.wp article has no talk page). Regardless the nom's rationale holds and this can be deleted once attribution is properly sorted (I don't know the best way to do this). Pinging User:Alekol (the first recently active Serbo-Croatian editor I found). Thryduulf (talk) 17:35, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If that's relevant, good part of Croatia was part of French empire as Illyrian Provinces. But it looks weird, though, having this redirect. --Alekol (talk) 19:42, 16 May 2019 (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.

Brexit + expletives[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 Brexshit and Bad Brexit, delete Brexit crap, Fucking Brexit Rally, and Fucking Brexit. No consensus on where the two being kept should point, but I'm sure some WP:BOLD editors can make do if need be ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:17, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see any need for these redirects, none of which are mentioned in the target, and there's the obvious POV concerns. Brexshit was actually deleted in a previous discussion, although that one to me seems the least inappropriate as it has at least actually received some use in reliable sources. signed, Rosguill talk 22:40, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, retarget or soft redirect Brexshit as that does get a lot of use, including in some reliable sources. I'm uncertain whether the current target is the best though. Thryduulf (talk) 00:02, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep or retarget Bad Brexit, given the plethora of Adjective+Brexit terms (hard Brexit, red white and blue Brexit, etc) it's a plausible search term, a more specific article might be better but I'm very uncertain about this one. Thryduulf (talk) 00:02, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the rest per nom. Thryduulf (talk) 00:02, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, at least most of them. I note Thryduulf's suggestions: those two could be kept, but Bad Brexit should probably go instead just to Brexit. Bondegezou (talk) 13:41, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete except Brexshit, which, as Thryduulf notes, does get used a lot, and Bad Brexit, which could be retargeted to Opposition to Brexit. Where to retarget Brexshit is a problem though. This is Paul (talk) 14:15, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A couple of these may be kept, but no consensus exists on where to target them. The current target, Brexit, and Opposition to Brexit in the United Kingdom (WP:INUSA problem?) are all options.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 13:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that for the ones that currently have keep support, either the current target or Brexit would be most appropriate. signed, Rosguill talk 21:58, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral on whether the two mentioned above are worth keeping, but if they are they should redirect to Brexit. The others should be deleted. CMD (talk) 08:46, 17 May 2019 (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.

US and Canadian license plates[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 Vehicle registration plate#Americas. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:11, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete. The redirect is broad to the point of uselessness - every country (and for the US and Canada, each province/state) has its own page for its license plates and there's also a top level Vehicle registration plate article should you need to link to a more broad page. I've gone through all the pages that link to this redirect and fixed them up to more direct pages. Lordgilman (talk) 17:50, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and retarget to section Vehicle registration plate#Americas. Evidently this pointed at a specific section in the past that has been expanded so that Canada and United States are no longer next to each other. It's a clear WP:XY situation, except that the redirect has some significant pageview activity, and the target is a halfway appropriate one for either of the two topics which have more specific articles. Harmless, in a nutshell. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:48, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The direct might cause confusion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:53, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and retarget per Ivanvector. Nobody using this redirect (and people do nearly every single day) is going to be at all confused to end up at the Americas section of the target, given that it covers license plates in the US and Canada. There is no chance of confusing it with any other target. Given the usage it's almost certainly linked from somewhere and breaking those links will not benefit anybody in any way at all. Thryduulf (talk) 20:20, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There are a few variant redirects, which I am adding for completeness.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 13:37, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - my earlier comment applies to all of the newly listed redirects. But whatever happens their fate should obviously all be the same. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:16, 16 May 2019 (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.

La mujer del cosmonauta[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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:42, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not a Spanish-language film. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:33, 16 May 2019 (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.

Die Abenteuer von Rocky & Bullwinkle[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 24#Die Abenteuer von Rocky & Bullwinkle

Ahmad ibn Fadlan (The 13th Warrior)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 24#Ahmad ibn Fadlan (The 13th Warrior)

Gut bath[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/Retarget. The redirect has been overwritten by an article and that article moved to Organ bath (effectively retargetting the original redirect to that new article). This is without prejudice to a new nomination should anyone feel the term should still be deleted and/or target somewhere else. Thryduulf (talk) 11:03, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target redirect to Pharmacology#History per Thryduulf, although other suggestions relating to creating Organ bath seem reasonable as well. signed, Rosguill talk 02:16, 16 May 2019 (UTC) 21:48, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. A gut bath does seem to be a thing mentioned in quite a few medical studies, and there is a picture of one at [5], and Wikipedia should have an article on one - it's linked from the Template:Pharmacology navbox (but it would need better sources than I've found so far), but this target is not helpful as it isn't mentioned. I'll ping the Pharmacology and Medicine projects. Thryduulf (talk) 07:57, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and refine to Pharmacology#History, a new section I've split from the overly long lead section, that includes the addition by Jamgoodman mentioning the term. That addition could do with being less technical, but that's a style issue and not a reason to delete this. Thryduulf (talk) 14:15, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Per WhatamIdoing and Tryptofish below, this should redirect to Organ bath when that article is created, but keeping it at the short mention in Pharmacology#History is best until then. Thryduulf (talk) 17:40, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Okay makes sense now. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:25, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know. The studies that I found on a quick google search always seem to just assume that the reader knows what a gut bath is. If I'd found an explanation I'd have been tempted to start a quick stub, or at least add a definition to Wiktionary. Hopefully a pharmacologist will enlighten us all at some point. Thryduulf (talk) 09:12, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's a technique for studying drug effects on individual organs. Basically, you take a rat (or guinea pig, or whatever), anesthetize it, slice open the abdomen, dump its guts into a comfortably heated bowl (with saline, etc., to make it work as similar to the abdominal cavity as possible), and run your experiment. (Then you kill the rat; there's no necessity to put it through the pain of recovery).
        I assume that a very similar technique is used for those dramatic liver cancer treatments that involve removing the liver, pumping it full of drugs, washing the drugs back out, and putting the liver back in. IMO Bondegezou is on the right track to suggest Organ bath, since it's possible to use this for organs other than the guts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:22, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per above 2 editors rationalekeep b/c of what Seppi says below--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:24, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because it's derp. Edit: Due to the intervening revision in the target article of the redirect, I have no opinion either way as of now. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 10:15, 16 May 2019 (UTC) Edited: 04:37, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, based upon a cursory check of pubmed, the term is used to refer to a particular method of preparing isolated segments of the GI tract for use in experimental biomedical research, not specifically pharmacology research. This redirect really needs to be deleted. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 10:27, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why I made the redirect Hi all. I'm the pharmacologist and user that made the redirect. I've added a section in the pharmacology article describing what an organ bath is. It was formerly the most common research technique in pharmacology so I thought it merited a redirect. In its day, it had at least the notability that Two-hybrid screening and Optogenetics have now. You're right that it arguably isn't only used in pharmacology but that's where it was most extensively used. But feel free to delete it if you think it's not sufficiently notable. Jamgoodman (talk) 10:50, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An article on organ bath or gut bath would be good, but this re-direct is too distant to work. Bondegezou (talk) 11:02, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep given Jamgoodman's expert explanation and addition to the article. @Jamgoodman: would it be possible to write a separate article about this procedure for non-experts? What you've written is a decent start but I think doesn't really help the average reader's understanding. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:51, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will at some point but I'm in the middle of exam season so it'll have to wait a bit. Jamgoodman (talk) 14:37, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Rosguill, your rationale is now invalid, so would you like to withdraw this? Also, in the future, when you're concerned about a target not being mentioned in the article, please consider just leaving a question on the target's talk page or ask the person who created it. Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup, and your concern was only addressed because someone pinged the creator. There's really no need to involve RFD and its bureaucratic overhead when you could just ask directly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:22, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't particularly mind using it as a (rather obscure) redirect, although "organ bath" is by far the more common phrase, and it may be more specifically related to the history of organ culture. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:39, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    By way of expanding on what I just said, I think that what may be the single most notable historical example of this kind of experimental preparation was in the Nobel-winning discovery of Vagusstoff. But that wasn't a gut organ, but rather the heart, and the findings were more about physiology than about pharmacology. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, as the subject now has a mention in the target article. That mention could use a citation though, and this is still a rather odd search term. Geolodus (talk) 18:29, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm with the crowd advocating Organ bath as a better term, then that would be the target of a redirect. It's widely know among those of us working on smooth muscle physiology and pharmacology; I have a few in my lab still used from time to time. Perhaps that might be best done by creating at Gut bath then moving to Organ bath; I'd be happy to work on it. Klbrain (talk) 21:07, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Klbrain, did I hear you say "I'd be happy to upload some photos"? 'Cause that's what your comment sounded like to me... ;-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:46, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose we could retarget it to emetic or laxative.... --Tryptofish (talk) 20:25, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • WhatamIdoing: I did rather walk into that one ... might have to do some cleaning first, but should be able to upload a photo.
  • emetic or laxative are rather too far away. Small intestine#Function might be marginally closer, on the grounds that an organ bath is also used for assessing physiological function/regulation. Klbrain (talk) 22:39, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In case it wasn't clear, I was joking. Maybe enema would be even better. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:12, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've drafted a potential Organ bath article at the Gut bath page, in case that proves to be useful. A move to Organ bath would be my recommendation as a way forward. Klbrain (talk) 08:54, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for getting this started. I've watchlisted it and have made some edits. I want to note that Jamgoodman has moved it already to Organ bath. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:25, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expanded stub and moved article to 'organ bath'. I think we can all agree that 'organ bath' is far better terminology than 'gut bath', which is more of a colloquialism. I've added some more content to the article and moved it to the new name. I think we can probably remove the redirect tag now given that the issue seems sorted? Jamgoodman (talk) 17:35, 19 May 2019 (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.

French Africa atrocities[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 28#French Africa atrocities

Population history of Algeria (1830-1871)[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. (non-admin closure) Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 08:58, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An ungrammatical phrase which makes for an unlikely search term signed, Rosguill talk 02:00, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I see nothing ungrammatical about the phrase "Population history of Algeria" (just look at how many reliable sources you see in search results for "population history of" on Google) and even if it wasn't it's far from an implausible search term. Anyone using this search term is taken to content that exactly matches what they are looking for, and there are no other articles it is ambiguous to. Thryduulf (talk) 08:07, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:11, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as this is standard jargon in the relevant field, and leave it pointing at the same target, since that's the obvious target. (It's unclear what the nom thought should be done, but I think that nothing should be done.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:26, 16 May 2019 (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.

Radio Shanghai[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 23#Radio Shanghai

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_May_16&oldid=1138582830"