Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 10[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 10, 2020.

Holden McGroin[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. In general, gag names should be redirected only if they are noteworthy enough to be mentioned at the target. I've deleted all 10, and any significant ones can be recreated as needed. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:00, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target article, we don't need to include made-up (insert "contextless") gag names at that article if we ain't gonna use them as example. Delete unless a justifiable reference at another article can be found.

And these others, all of which are Neelix-quality redirects(strike WP:BITE-yish comment). Hog Farm (talk) 23:09, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: How are you defining made-up? Some of them have been said in sitcoms which millions of people have watched. For example, Holden McGroin was used in Rules of Engagement. Jim Michael (talk) 23:54, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Noting BD2412 is the creator of gag name, but not necessarily the redirects there, I do think this is an entirely reasonable target, even without a mention at the target, so long as substantiated by pageviews. Question to Hog Farm, have you looked at the past twelve month pageview history of each? I'm inclined to think Holden McGroin and Ivanna Tinkle are worth keep-ing; not sure about the others. Doug Mehus T·C 23:58, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Dmehus and Jim Michael: Striking made-up from nom, "contextless" is a better (and more WP:AGF) way of saying what I actually intended. I'm not seeing the value in having redirects from examples of gag names to the gag name page if the example is not actually mentioned at the page. Shows like The Simpsons and South Park are filled with names like these; where do we draw the line on what to redirect there. I'd say at which redirects the text actually mentions, in order to provide context for the terms. If a user searches for Holden McGroin and finds nothing about Mr. McGroin at page they are sent for, they will not be directed to content about what they search for. There are so many possible gag names, where do we draw the line? I'd say if they're not mentioned in the target article, but feel free to disagree. Hog Farm (talk) 01:17, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Some readers, especially those for whom English is not their first language, may not understand the joke, so directing them to gag name will explain to them the use of such names. If they're not mentioned on gag name, then that article should be expanded - rather than the redirects deleted. Some gag names are used as names of characters, for example the Austin Powers characters Ivana Humpalot & Dixie Normous. Jim Michael (talk) 01:26, 11 February 2020 (UTC)}[reply]
Hog Farm See my reply below. I get the thinking, but in these cases, they're all targeted to gag name, which is what they are (with or without a mention). If not targeted here, they will, invariably, be recreated, and targeted elsewhere, which may or may not be as appropriate. Having these targeted to an article on gag names is, I think, the best outcome, barring a more acceptable target for any of them. Doug Mehus T·C 01:41, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget, where applicable, to a better target where mentioned. Otherwise, these are all gag names and appropriately targeted to a decent enough target. I support boldly or at consensus close the rcats of each redirect. Doug Mehus T·C 01:36, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since my name has been invoked, I just stopped by to express no opinion on the matter. BD2412 T 02:10, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since the target enumerates several examples of gag names but was unable to make room for these lesser known and not-as-noteworthy gag names. -- Tavix (talk) 02:35, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If they're characters in notable films, TV series etc. or the basis of jokes within them, they're well-known enough to be kept & mentioned on gag name. I've retargeted Dixie Normous to List of Austin Powers characters - I believe that to be the only one of the redirects listed above which is a character in a notable work of fiction, rather than a fake name used as a joke. Jim Michael (talk) 14:31, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jim Michael I personally have no problem with that new target (guess I forgot about that minor character), but it's usually considered bad form to change redirect targets until the outcome of the RfD. That said, since consensus can change at any time, any of these redirects can be retargeted, created, converted to articles, etc. boldly after the RfD has closed. So, my preference would be for you to self-revert the good-faith retarget. Doug Mehus T·C 14:45, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with that retarget. If a redirect is nominated due to a lack of a mention, and a non-controversial mention is added elsewhere, it would therefore make sense to make the change. -- Tavix (talk) 15:02, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, sounds good then. Doug Mehus T·C 17:16, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as unmentioned, and thus unhelpful since readers who search for these redirects will not find any information a lot the phrase they searched. These redirects are obscure subtopics to a possible (but not necessarily the only) parent topic; they are about as helpful as targeting Michael Jordan to Basketball, the target of redirect Basketball player. Steel1943 (talk) 20:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very different situation, because Jordan has his own article. Jim Michael (talk) 20:37, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
...I think my point was missed... Steel1943 (talk) 21:30, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Steel1943: - may I say Whooosh! on your behalf?
For those who don't follow UK politics blogs (my advice: you already know more than you need to), Whooosh! is the cry made by someone who's just landed a juicy trout. Narky Blert (talk) 00:10, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget any mentioned in some other article to that article. Delete the rest.
The number of such names is limitless. Gag name should not be an indiscriminate repository for every name someone can dream up. Betty Swollocks is mentioned in a trustworthy source, but that event was so trifling that there is no reason whatsoever to mention the name in WP. However, Hugh Jampton could justifiably be added to the article; as perhaps could Cupid Stunt. Narky Blert (talk) 21:16, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How should it be determined which names should be in gag name? Jim Michael (talk) 21:19, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jim Michael: I'd suggest, a well-sourced mention in another article; that is, a bluelink which leads the reader to more information than is in gag name. Narky Blert (talk) 23:54, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
...These are just observations I made while I was tagging these redirects; I am in no way supporting or opposing these as alternative targets, and pending any proof or evidence that these are valid alternative targets, I stick by my "delete" comment above. Steel1943 (talk) 22:51, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dixie Normous clearly should be redirected to List of Austin Powers characters, because she's a character in one of the AP films & is described on that article. That is ample evidence.
P. Nesshead is mentioned in I'm Alan Partridge, given by a prank caller in one episode. Jim Michael (talk) 23:32, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all unless mentioned or can easiliy retarget to character for the appropriate film. Those which get multiple coverage will end up being in the article anyway. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:12, 11 February 2020 (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.

Mexican Federalist 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. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:01, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This section doesn't exist, and I don't know what else to do with this redirect other than to delete it.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  15:26, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed it the redirect. It fell between the cracks of two articles First Mexican Republic and Centralist Republic of Mexico. Since I created the redirect there has been a considerable movement of information and the redirect is better suited to the article Centralist Republic of Mexico#Armed opposition to the Central Republic (to which it now links). -- PBS (talk) 16:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't change a redirect's target while it's under discussion, as it can make the discussion much harder to follow. If redirecting to a new target is the outcome you want, state it as a vote. signed, Rosguill talk 03:47, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What a strange request. This is not a vote about deletion, it is a discussion about a rediret. There is absolutly no reason why the redirect can not be changed, and it is not confusing as I have mentioned the change here. -- PBS (talk) 23:21, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Rosguill I am concerned that as an administrator you think this process is based on voting and not consensus building. -- PBS (talk) 23:36, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Twisting my words much? Where did I say that consensus building is not the goal? signed, Rosguill talk 23:42, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your words "If redirecting to a new target is the outcome you want, state it as a vote." -- PBS (talk) 00:14, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in response to you unilaterally changing the content under discussion. The quoted statement in no way means that I don't view this as a consensus building process or that I think that this is just a simple majority vote. signed, Rosguill talk 00:33, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the new redirect following PBS's edit doesn't seem much better. The only mention of "Mexican Federalist War" is a template inserted in the body of the article, and I can find no other mention of the war or its battles (as listed in the template) anywhere else in the article. signed, Rosguill talk 03:47, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:03, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only citation I could find mentioning Mexican Federalist War is this, which is from a wiki and is therefore non-WP:RS. However, it plausibly describes that war as the series of separate insurgencies in various places which took place between 1835 and 1848, as described in the second para of Centralist Republic of Mexico. There is no relevant article on the DAB page Mexican Civil War. I haven't been able to find an article in Spanish WP which treats those insurgencies as a group. Not mentioned in WP, no RS using the term, so... Narky Blert (talk) 17:20, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If this becomes the consensus, we should probably start an MfD to delete Template:Campaignbox Mexican Federalist War. signed, Rosguill talk 21:49, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. That template doesn't include (among other things) the Texas Revolution, which was an early part of that war. Narky Blert (talk) 23:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Narky Blert did you search Google Books any online libraries, or for that mattter the sources in the battles? Eg for example:
  • Jaques, Tony, ed. (2007), Dictionary of Battles and Sieges: A Guide to 8,500 Battles from Antiquity through the Twenty-first Century (3 volumes ed.), Greenwood Publishing Group, p. 5, ISBN 978-0-313-33536-5{{citation}}: CS1 maint: ignored ISBN errors (link)
So now that you have a reference to a reliable source, does that change your mind? -- PBS (talk) 23:21, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The section "Armed opposition to the Central Republic" is just a section title for the Mexican Federalist War, but from a different (winners) POV.
The template Template:Campaignbox Mexican Federalist War does not include the Texas Rebellion because it is covered in its own campaign box Template:Campaignbox Texas Revolution this arrangement for more than one campagn box for a war is quite normal. @[[User:Rosguill it is not clear to me what your objections are. Please can you explain in more detail? -- PBS (talk) 23:21, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Previously, my objection was that we didn't have any sourced information that this war had even taken place or that these battles corresponded to it. Based on the information you provided above, it seems that it's just an alternative name for the Texas Revolution. Could you provide examples of wars that have multiple different campaignboxes for them? I tried searching for some wars that I know multiple names for and failed to find any duplicates. I'm also concerned that regardless of the propriety of having multiple different campaign boxes for the same war, the lack of cited information connecting the battles to the war in the relevant articles falls short of WP:V. signed, Rosguill talk 23:29, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here are examples from two wars:
  1. Template:Campaignbox Wars of the Three Kingdoms
  2. Template:Campaignbox Sixth Coalition Template:Campaignbox Peninsular War
-- PBS (talk) 00:09, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. In hindsight, I think I misremembered the situation a bit (or relevant pages have changed recently, for the better). Having taken a second look at the pages linked by the Mexican Federalist War template, I think that the template's relevance is established and there's no need to delete it, although we should probably add mentions of the war's name outside of just the template in articles that don't already do so. signed, Rosguill talk 00:16, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand you comment "Based on the information you provided above, it seems that it's just an alternative name for the Texas Revolution." Not one of the battles listed in the Campaign Box Template:Campaignbox Mexican Federalist War are part of the Texas War of Independece. The reason why I created the second campaign box and populated it with battles is because the Texas War of Independence was covered in detail, but the other battles not involving Texans were not included in Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias#Systemic bias in coverage and selection of articles) -- PBS (talk) 00:25, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The results of the Google search you linked seemed to suggest that it was an alternative name, including excerpts such as An Episode of the Mexican Federalist War in Texas, Usually Referred to as the Texas Revolution. With that as evidence, I misinterpreted your claim about it being the war's name from a different POV as meaning that you were saying that the war's other name was the Texas Revolution. signed, Rosguill talk 00:33, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The sourcing is just too weak. Almost all uses of the phrase on Google are references to a particular 1974 publication: Captain Phillip Dimmitt's Commandancy of Goliad, 1835-1836: An Episode of the Mexican Federalist War in Texas, Usually Referred to as the Texian Revolution. I'll ping MILHIST for any other input, but right now it looks just one degree removed from outright WP:OR. --BDD (talk) 14:58, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The sourced used for the campaign box and redirect was Jaques, Tony, ed. (2007), Dictionary of Battles and Sieges: A Guide to 8,500 Battles from Antiquity through the Twenty-first Century (3 volumes ed.), Greenwood Publishing Group, ISBN 978-0-313-33536-5. So how is it Original Research? If this name for the war is not used in the campaign box, then what colective name do you suggest is used for the battles in the war? -- PBS (talk) 18:01, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You cited that before. For those of us without a copy, could you share what it says about the war? Note that I did not outright call this original research; I'm not suggesting someone on Wikipedia made it up, but I am outright stating that it does not seem to be frequently discussed in other sources. Does the Dictionary just give a simple definition or discuss the conflict in more detail? --BDD (talk) 18:10, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No it does not. It is a list of battles (with brief descriptions) grouped into wars. The 3 volumes are available under google books and may well be searchable where ever you are based: eg p. 890. The name used in the 3 volumes seems reasonable and ties into other sources for example Britanica states: "Under various labels, two factions contended for control. The Centralists, who were generally conservative, favoured a strong central government in the viceregal tradition, a paid national army, and Roman Catholicism as the exclusive religion. Opposed to them were the Federalists, who favoured limited central government, ....". So what name do you suggest for the campaign box? Or are you suggesting that the battles should not be in any campzign box? At the moment the section header is "Armed opposition to the Central Republic [of Mexico]", which could be used asa title but is not as susinct as the current title. Another option is to rename the section to Federalist Wars, or yet a third is to add the phrase Federalist Wars" in parentheses. As I said above the "Texas War of Independence" was one of a series of conflicts, and while it was the largest having that as the only campaign box is I think diplaying the "Systemic bias in coverage and selection of articles". If that is not your intention why do you want to delete the redirect? -- PBS (talk) 18:39, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here are two more sources both on Wikisource

  • History of Mexico (Bancroft)/Volume 5/Chapter 9: Federalist Agitation 1838-1840 the chapter starts "Free from foreign complications, the government was permitted to give undivided attention to the federalist uprising,...
  • EB1911 Mexico: III.— Independent Mexico p. 360 "The conflicts, which may at first sight seem to be merely between rival generals, are seen upon closer examination to be mainly (1) between the privileged classes, i.e. the church and (at times) the army, and the mass of the other civilized population; (2) between Centralists and Federalists, the former being identical with the army, the church and the supporters of despotism, while the latter represent the desire for republicanism and local self-government."

Given that the war took place and given that it is more than the Texas War of Inderpendence what name should be given to the war if not the "Mexican Federalist War"? -- PBS (talk) 20:12, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: discussion seems to be ongoing
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 22:37, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom—lack of mention—and WP:R#D10 to encourage article creation. Doug Mehus T·C 22:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh? How would there be an article at this title? The other deletes were due to a lack of sourcing, not because this is a topic that we're missing. -- Tavix (talk) 02:41, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The target of the redirect contains shedloads of informtion about the Federalist War. To create a duplicate article would be a content fork. I will add fhe name into the text of the target of the link. -- PBS (talk) 14:56, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The lead of the featured article Texas Revolution starts:

The Texas Revolution (October 2, 1835 – April 21, 1836) was a rebellion of colonists from the United States and Tejanos (Texas Mexicans) in putting up armed resistance to the centralist government of Mexico. While the uprising was part of a larger one that included other provinces opposed to the regime of President Antonio López de Santa Anna...

This campaign box lists the battles that took place in the "larger one". As I said before what name should the larger "uprising" be called in the campaign box if not "Mexican Federalist War"?

In response to some of the comments here I have added a paragraph to the lead of the section "Centralist Republic of Mexico#Armed opposition to the Central Republic|Armed opposition to the Central Republic]]" in the article Centralist Republic of Mexico explicitly mentioning the name "Mexican Federalist War". In addition I have included the battle of Battle of Zacatecas (1835) in the campaign box (as it was part of the war) and I have also included a link to the Texan War of Independence (Texas Revolution) in the campaign box. -- PBS (talk) 14:53, 17 February 2020 (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.

Enterprise networks[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. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:46, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target and not a synonym as far as I can tell. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 20:02, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to allow time to discuss the retarget suggestion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 22:30, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not opposed to BDD's suggestion, but I do have concerns of ambiguity per WP:R#D2, so I'd still prefer deletion per that and WP:R#D10 to encourage article creation (or dabification). For example, an enterprise network doesn't just refer to an intranet. BDD, could this work as a potential WP:BCA? Whatever we do with this redirect, we should do boldly to enterprise network, I think. Doug Mehus T·C 22:51, 10 February 2020 (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.

Foo (word) soft redirects to Wiktionary[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. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:46, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't seem to be any point in having redirects for "Foo (word)" if it's just a soft redirect to the wiktionary entry for "Foo". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:15, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. In fact, I would go as far as saying that there should never be any redirects to Wiktionary that use a disambiguator, because they're not plausible search terms. -- Tavix (talk) 17:48, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; all are used frequently enough to warrant a redirect. No reason following WP:RfD#DELETE has been given; as such, there is no point in deleting the redirects and they are all apparently viable search terms. J947 (c), at 23:18, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I wholeheartedly agree with Tavix. Soft redirects outside English WP are WP:EASTEREGGs. An inline redirect like [[wikt:foobar|]] (which IMO should only be used for jargon or foreign-language terms which a reader might not understand but would be helped by a dictionary definition) are fine: anyone can see what's going on. Soft cross-project redirects are not.
    In passing: who on earth is going to look up or link to over (word)? If it's the preposition, 'over' should never be linked. If it's one of the meanings on the DAB page over, it should be linked to the relevant article. Narky Blert (talk) 00:03, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. I agree with WP:EASTEREGG -- either directly links terms cross-project or not link them at all; no redirects are needed. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 10:17, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 100% concur (was Delete) with per Tavix. I concur with his rationale word-for-word otherwise we could literally have a Wikipedia soft redirect for every Wiktionary definition. Now, if these didn't have a parenthetical qualifier, then we could be potentially considering keeping these. Doug Mehus T·C 14:42, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, pinging Narky Blert and Hellknowz. I do not believe soft redirects can function as WP:EASTEREGGs as they do not immediately point the readers to Wiktionary, rather they give them the option (You may want to read Wiktionary's entry on "over" instead.). As readers have searched up over (word), it is best to redirect them softly cross-project to get the information they were most likely to be looking for. It would also inform them of a Wikimedia project that they—in all likelihood—have never heard of before. J947 (c), at 23:06, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see what you are saying about the actual meaning of the EASTEREGG. But my point is that they should not be hidden behind a redirect. As for searching, it is not up to Wikipedia to provide cross-project redirects for search queries to other projects. These are just random words to me. If they really need cross-project links, then they should be inline. Otherwise, with such practice every other term we don't have articles for would end up being linked like this. Any technical article would become just a collection of links to redirect pages like these. I exaggerate, but I don't see how these particular examples are any better. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 10:21, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Retarget per J947. While I can agree with Tavix and others that we have valid reasons to not actively encourage the creation of new wiktionary soft redirects for random words, I don't see the harm in keeping the ones that we already have. signed, Rosguill talk 21:49, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per @Rosguill and J947:. I still agree 100% with Tavix, but, for some reason, there is surprisingly decent usage for these redirects. So, I think we generally should avoid soft redirects to Wiktionary with parenthetical qualifiers unless substantiated by the usage. Most userpages don't get that many pageviews in a 30 day period. Doug Mehus T·C 22:10, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 22:21, 10 February 2020 (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.

Mason word[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to History of freemasonry#Degrees and rituals of Freemasonry. signed, Rosguill talk 22:20, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is unclear why this redirects here. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:48, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 22:19, 10 February 2020 (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.

Riddlestick[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. signed, Rosguill talk 22:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An alleged slang name for the penis; not mentioned in the article; so obscure that neither I nor Wiktionary nor Urban Dictionary have ever heard of it. Delete. Narky Blert (talk) 21:44, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Narky Blert...you beat me to it! RFiddlesticks. --Doug Mehus T·C 22:20, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Too obscure of a slang term. It might be worth the technological work to find a way to make some sort of protection level for redirecting to a page, for instance requiring autoconfirmed or confirmed access to create a redirect to a semi-protected page. Hog Farm (talk) 22:50, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hog Farm: It might be worth formulating a request at WP:EFR for this specific target. It's always going to attract juvenile "jokes". Narky Blert (talk) 23:45, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is from Act 3, Scene 1 of Romeo and Juliet. Helping the occasional student decode Shakespearean slang is an excellent use for a redirect. Also, this redirect has been around for more than a decade. That's years and years beyond the WP:RFD#HARMFUL standard. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There's nothing in the target about the word. Narky Blert (talk) 14:01, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    So what? There's no rule that says that every redirect has to be mentioned in the current version of the target article. I think our readers will probably figure it out, don't you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:49, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I get where WhatamIdoing is going with this, that is that riddlestick is a Renaissance-era synonym for the human male's penis. On that basis, it's a plausible target. There's nothing wrong with keeping it, but it comes down to how often it is used. If it gets less than ~40-50 pageviews per year, which is my "number," then I'd say "delete." Doug Mehus T·C 03:27, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    In terms of pageviews, it gets all of 13 pageviews for the preceding twelve month period, to the day before nomination, so I'd say the (Old?) English slang term for penis, riddlestick, has fallen out of use. Wouldn't you? Doug Mehus T·C 03:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @WhatamIdoing: You are wrong. R&J Act III Scene I, Mercutio: "Consort! what, dost thou make us minstrels? an thou make minstrels of us, look to hear nothing but discords: here's my fiddlestick; here's that shall make you dance. 'Zounds, consort!" (emphasis added). Despite a typical R&J bawdy pun, Mercutio is talking about his sword. Narky Blert (talk) 22:04, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Narky Blert FTW. As an aside, I do use the term fiddlestick (see above), not riddlestick. Doug Mehus T·C 22:33, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dmehus: A fiddlestick is also a slide rule. Narky Blert (talk) 22:42, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Narky. I blame bad OCR in the digitized copies (because I was looking at the OCR results, not the print).  ;-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:19, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A riddle stick is a tool used to poke a dying fire back into life. I think I'll leave that concept there. Narky Blert (talk) 04:34, 13 February 2020 (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.

Power grab[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. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:43, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While a coup d'état is a type of power grab, there are power grabs that are not coup d'état, and I would thus suggest deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 21:22, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom (tied for 1st choice) or Dabify (tied for 1st choice) if someone, such as Narky Blert or Crouch, Swale want to draft a potential dab page below the target.
Note: I have checked wikt:power grab and found nothing, so that avenue has been explored. --Doug Mehus T·C 21:27, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the WT entry was deleted in 2017, note that the Coup d'état doesn't even mention "power grab" and it could probably mean anything. That said the article does appear to be somewhat relevant. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:04, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The term is extremely vague and gets used in so many contexts outside of politics (taking over businesses in terms of controversial leveraged buyouts come to mind) that deletion seems to be the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:40, 12 February 2020 (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.

Wedding tackle[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 soft redirect to Wikt:wedding tackle. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:42, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See also #Wedding Tackle, below. We really do not need links from every slang term or euphemism for the male genitalia that has ever been thought up. Soft redirect to wikt:wedding tackle.

FWIW, I think this one may be British Army WWII slang. Humourist Spike Milligan frequently used it and may have popularised it; see this Google search (ignoring the photos for present purposes). Narky Blert (talk) 21:14, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Soft redirect to wikt:wedding tackle per nom. I would've preferred to do this boldly actually, but thought with the other passing references, we should be maybe dab-ifying this.
 Question: to Rosguill, if a term is only being used as a redirect on English Wikipedia, are we allowed to convert it to a soft redirect to Wiktionary boldly? Doug Mehus T·C 21:32, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason why that wouldn't be acceptable. signed, Rosguill talk 21:35, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the fast response. Yeah, I was thinking maybe in the case of history merges, we may want to avoid that because we can't tag with rcats {{R from merge}} or {{R with history}} (though we could, potentially, categorize using the rcat categories manually). Doug Mehus T·C 21:38, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have added the wiki markup, commented out below the target, should this close as a Wiktionary soft redirect. Doug Mehus T·C 21:35, 10 February 2020 (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.

Haldir (disambiguation)[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 delete per WP:G14 signed, Rosguill talk 22:46, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure why a page with the (disambiguation) qualifier would redirect to a page that is neither a disambiguation page or about Haldir. (Probably a leftover from a page redirect). Hog Farm (talk) 21:09, 10 February 2020 (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.

Lkjhgfdsa[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 18#Lkjhgfdsa

J.r.r.[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 JRR. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 04:59, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"J.r.r." does not have exclusive affinity with Tolkien, despite being his partial initials. Hog Farm (talk) 21:00, 10 February 2020 (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.

Teleporno[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. signed, Rosguill talk 22:17, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target article. One mention in a filmography at Jesús Franco, so retarget there or delete. Hog Farm (talk) 20:55, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete/Retarget to an applicable dab page, if available, per nom as ambiguous. --Doug Mehus T·C 21:42, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or weak retarget to Jesús Franco, where this unfinished hardcore porn film (redlinked in Italian WP) is mentioned.
There can be no DAB page where there is only one possible target, strong or weak! Narky Blert (talk) 22:13, 10 February 2020 (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.

Two Watchers[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 19#Two Watchers

Ringwil[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 Hinwil. signed, Rosguill talk 22:16, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing retarget to Hinwil. Not mentioned in a Middle-earth context, but is mentioned as a Swiss village, so I recommend retargeting to the municipality page where the village is mentioned. Hog Farm (talk) 20:27, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per nom. Better a link to an article which has some minimal information about an actual place (redlinked in German WP) than a link to an article which has no information about a fictional place. Narky Blert (talk) 20:38, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete This redirect is the result of a poorly documented merge, with content being copied between here and here. If you are going to nominate elderly redirects for deletion even though WP:RFD#HARMFUL says to leave them alone, then you need to remember that Twinkle didn't exist back then, so you have to actually read the page history and check the linked articles by hand. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:53, 11 February 2020 (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.

Stockbrook[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 disambiguate. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 12:14, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think this redirect should be disambiguated. There's the Middle-earth river mentioned at Shire (Middle-earth), a mill mentioned at List of mills in the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham, a park mentioned in California, Derby, and a region in the city of Derby. I can't see the Middle-earth topic being the primary topic, and there's enough potential entries for a dab page. Hog Farm (talk) 20:22, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm, looks good. I added one more see also reference to stock brokerage firm, which I assume would be fine? Doug Mehus T·C 21:19, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dmehus I might have gone with Stockbroker, as closer spelling-wise to the Stockbrook, but I wouldn't object either way. Hog Farm (talk) 21:21, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hog Farm Actually, I thought about that first. I'll change it. Doug Mehus T·C 21:24, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also adding Stock Brook, the namesake of the mill and an area in Chadderton. I doubt the public park is notable, but the mill might be historic enough to be so. Hog Farm (talk) 21:30, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
True, feel free to unlink the public park, though, apparently geographic land features don't have to pass WP:GNG, so maybe it might? Saw it briefly scanning the NPP newsletter at SMcC's talk page. Stock Brook is so similar, I doubt it even needs to be a see also reference. I'll make a change, see what you think. Doug Mehus T·C 21:34, 13 February 2020 (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.

Gilrain[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 19#Gilrain

Discoveries in medicine[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 Timeline of medicine and medical technology. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 12:15, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on the fence here, since the current target is the most appropriate, but it's nevertheless misleading because there are many medical discoveries that are not directly tied to developing a drug. I think that List of medical discoveries by year could be a list in its own right, and would thus lean deletion on WP:R#DELETE #10 grounds. signed, Rosguill talk 20:00, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Germ theory of disease, first proposed 1025, the currently accepted scientific theory.
  2. William Harvey (1578-1657), discovered the circulation of the blood.
  3. John Snow (1813-1858), stopped a cholera outbreak by removing the handle from a public water pump.
  4. Joseph Lister (1827-1912), pioneered antiseptic surgery.
All off the top of my head, and no drugs involved in any of them. Narky Blert (talk) 22:05, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I like this retarget suggestion and consider it to essentially be in line with what I was hoping would happen if an article were to have been created. signed, Rosguill talk 22:08, 10 February 2020 (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.

Qwertyuiopasdfghjkl;'zxcvbnm,./[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:26, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term, I would suggest deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 19:58, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete tagged for r3. Hog Farm (talk) 20:12, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Apparently, it is a plausible typo, so GB fan declined speedy deletion. Nevertheless, its utility is low. We can delete and let this play out. --Doug Mehus T·C 20:25, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kill it with fire. Nuke it from space. Make it go away. Delete as a wholly implausible search term. The failure to include '[]' after 'p' makes this a doubly-unlikely mispelling. Did I mention that I didn't think it necessary to do any searching at all? Narky Blert (talk) 20:50, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No one would seriously search this for any conceivable reason... ComplexRational (talk) 02:11, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this very recent redirect as an unlikely search term. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:01, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Qwerty already suffices. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:16, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Yeah, this is just... yeah. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:41, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Can't think of a real reason someone would need this redirect. MegaGoat (Talk) (Contribs) 19:05, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question for MegaGoat your edit summary for the above comment made me chuckle a bit that anyone had this redirect watchlisted. That alone could make an argument that someone finds it useful per WP:R#K5, but per your comments as well as my and others' comment above, it isn't useful or helpful. Nonetheless, I'm surprised anyone had it watchlisted. Thanks for the chuckle. ;-) Doug Mehus T·C 19:09, 12 February 2020 (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.

List of US assassinations[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 List of assassinations#United States. This discussion should not preclude any article creation in the future on a similar topic. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 12:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These are plausible search terms for a currently non-existent (but likely notable) list of Americans who were assassinated. I would suggest deletion to encourage article creation (and anyone looking for a list of assassinations by the US will still find what they're looking for in the internal search results) signed, Rosguill talk 21:16, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:58, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support J947's proposal to settle the relisting, although I personally find List of assassinations to be far too broad within itself. However, there is still a use for it, and this is off-topic. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:54, 18 February 2020 (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.

Santísimo Nombre de Jesús[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 18#Santísimo Nombre de Jesús

Aparador[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:27, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should be deleted per WP:RFOREIGN. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 13:24, 10 February 2020 (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.

Sexual Assault Resource Service[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:27, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

org name not mentioned at target, and unlikely notable or includable at target. No current users of redirect and no mention - fails WP:DABACRO at SARS (disambiguation) so removed. Widefox; talk 11:13, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting retargetting to that article which also doesn't mention it. Either way it fails DABACRO (and DABMENTION) so can't go at the dab, and there's no links that use it. It can be recreated later or at least used as a redlink, but as is what's the point? Widefox; talk 23:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not discussed in the Hennepin article so it isn't really helpful to have people think it is notable and it wouldn't meet MOS:DABMENTION Other services in other regions such other acronyms such as Sexual Assault Resource Center (SARC) AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:23, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above; it's vague and ambiguous. It could potentially be disambiguated, or retargeted, to a related dab page, but I see little use for it, and thus deletion is better. Doug Mehus T·C 15:10, 13 February 2020 (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.

Butterfly (2019 film)[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:27, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did not release in 2019 or 2018. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:05, 10 February 2020 (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.

Wedding Tackle[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 The Wedding Tackle. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 04:59, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Not mentioned in the current target, but I have heard this term used as an English slang term for the human male penis. In terms of utility and usefulness per WP:R#K5, or lack thereof per WP:R#D8, it's modestly useful with 25 page views in the preceding twelve months, inclusive to yesterday. However, more importantly, there are multiple uses extant to English Wikipedia; thus, it is ambiguous per WP:R#D2. Should we disambiguate (dab page draft below the target; feel free to improve/edit), or delete? Doug Mehus T·C 07:54, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can support that retarget-ing if we add (a) a Wiktionary link on that page and (b) a hatnote to the GPS drawing by the two musicians. Since you're good with knowing what hatnotes to use, can you add those? --Doug Mehus T·C 08:39, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
{{redirect-distinguish|Wedding Tackle|wedding tackle}}. Narky Blert (talk) 12:01, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Narky. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nom Comment in support of the retarget Noting that my own nomination doesn't support for retargeting, I'm adding my own !vote and rationale that I support this retargeting because it matches The Wedding Tackle Doug Mehus T·C 19:12, 12 February 2020 (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.

Trouser snake[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. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:49, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Not mentioned in the current target, but, more importantly, it's ambiguous and confusing per WP:R#D2, per the English Wikipedia search results when you search for "trouser snake" which show 3-4 potential dablinks, not including the link to trouser snake on Wiktionary. In terms of utility and usefulness per WP:R#K5, or lack thereof per WP:R#D2, with 199 pageviews in the preceding twelve month period, inclusive to yesterday, it's definitely worth keeping. Thus, because of the ambiguity and confusing, I propose we disambiguate, with a draft dab page below the target. Update: Per Cnilep's suggestion below, and in consideration of the weak draft disambiguation page that likely failed WP:DABMENTION, I've replaced the draft disambiguation page with a {{Wiktionary redirect}} soft redirect below the current target. As Shhhnotsoloud points out, English Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and this helps us enforce that.Amended Thanks. Doug Mehus T·C 07:15, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Apparently, it was previously nominated by Tavix as part of a bundled RfD, most of which were deleted except for wedding tackle and trouser snake, so I've added the previous RfD above. Doug Mehus T·C 08:26, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and does not require redirects for every slang term unless there is an encyclopaedic reason to do so. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:50, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:NOTDICTIONARY doesn't apply to redirects, but the pageviews support retaining this redirect. Its ambiguity, however, suggests disambiguating or retargeting. Doug Mehus T·C 20:27, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is nothing to disambiguate: Human penis does not include the term, and Humble Pie (album) includes it only as a portion of a title of one song. (The mention at Pristimantis verecundus was a hoax; I removed it.) If, as Doug Mehus suggests, others find it useful, a soft redirect to Wiktionary could suffice. Cnilep (talk) 02:20, 18 February 2020 (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.

Tadger[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 18#Tadger

Short penis[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 18#Short penis

Small dick[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 Human penis size. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:51, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to the redirects little dick, tiny penis, tiny cock, and small cock, the latter three of the quadruplets are also on today's log page, this redirect is not mentioned in the current target. Since there are no defined parameters on what constitutes a small dick, this redirect is ambiguous and confusing per WP:R#D2. In terms of assessing its utility per WP:R#K5, or lack thereof per WP:R#D8, it had 158 pageviews in the preceding twelve month period inclusive to yesterday. That's easily worth retention, so per WP:R#D2 and WP:K#K5, I propose retarget-ing to the dab page small penis as {{R from more specific name}} and {{R from related topic}}. Doug Mehus T·C 03:15, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SpicyMilkBoy, I don't think I could support human penis size as the target there. Bear in mind, it's a relatively new dab page and we have no deadlines. Can I take that as a weak retarget to the dab page as a second choice? Doug Mehus T·C 07:37, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Searching for just "Dick" gets you to a relevant dab page. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:08, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nom comment Redirects are WP:RCHEAP and the pageviews support the utility and usefulness of this redirect. Thus, it passes WP:R#K5 and fails WP:R#D8. We should be getting users to their destination in the most efficient means, not forcing them to do a "contains" search. Doug Mehus T·C 20:33, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural update from nom little dick now closed as retarget to small penis. Little is a plausible synonym for small and tiny, so it holds this well used redirect should target to the same place for the above reason(s). Doug Mehus T·C 19:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Human penis size rather than Small penis--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:03, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ozzie10aaaa The problem with that, though, is human penis size is not the correct target because we have multiple topics referring to human penis sizes including, but not limited to, micropenis and human penis, and no defined parameters with respect to size of human penises. Thus, it's WP:XY and ambiguous and confusing. And, note, this is one of those situations where the closer is permitted to decide on the target where consensus is to retarget in consideration of our policies. Doug Mehus T·C 17:09, 13 February 2020 (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.

Small cock[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. signed, Rosguill talk 06:14, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to the redirects little dick, tiny penis, and tiny cock the latter two of the trio are also on today's log page, this redirect is not mentioned in the current target. Since there are no defined parameters on what constitutes a tiny cock, this redirect is ambiguous and confusing per WP:R#D2. In terms of assessing its utility per WP:R#K5, or lack thereof per WP:R#D8, it had 73 pageviews in the preceding twelve month period inclusive to yesterday. That's slightly more than a borderline retention call, so per WP:R#D2 and WP:K#K5, I propose retarget-ing to the dab page small penis as {{R from more specific name}} and {{R from related topic}}. Doug Mehus T·C 03:08, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Noting Hog Farm's comment for the tiny cock RfD below, this could also mean a "small rooster," so I believe delete-ing is probably more preferable to retargeting here. I'm not sure we have a clear primary topic between cock for "penis" or "rooster". Doug Mehus T·C 05:40, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Human penis size rather than Small penis, which is a pretty poor dab page. I doubt that anyone searching for "small cock" is looking for information about roosters. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 07:06, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SpicyMilkBoy I wouldn't support that per the below discussion with Hog Farm due to the ambiguity. I'd recommend deletion or, failing that, retargeting to the dab page. We can easily add a reference to smaller roosters there, I'm sure, which would only enhance the dab page. Doug Mehus T·C 07:35, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I concur with the delete !votes and rationale of @Hog Farm and Narky Blert:. Its usage is modest and the ambiguity outweighs that. Doug Mehus T·C 17:23, 10 February 2020 (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.

Nanopenis[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. signed, Rosguill talk 06:13, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the current target article micropenis, and it's ambiguous and confusing in that micro and nano are different sizes. Thus, it cannot remain at the current target per WP:R#D2. In terms of its utility and usefulness per WP:R#K5, or lack thereof per WP:R#D8, it had 33 pageviews for the twelve months, to yesterday, preceding its nomination. I'd call that marginal utility. Thus, while I
oppose keep-ing this targeted to micropenis, I am neutral on retarget-ing (with rcats {{R from more specific name}} and {{R from related topic}}) it to the dab page small penis or to
delete-ing it and am bringing it forth for discussion. Doug Mehus T·C 02:58, 10 February 2020 (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.

Tiny cock[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. signed, Rosguill talk 06:13, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to the redirects little dick and tiny penis, the latter of which is at the bottom of today's log page, this redirect is not mentioned in the current target. Since there is no defined parameters on what constitutes a tiny cock, this redirect is ambiguous and confusing per WP:R#D2. In terms of assessing its utility per WP:R#K5, it had 18 pageviews in the preceding twelve month period inclusive to yesterday. That's marginally worth retaining, at best, so per WP:R#D2 and WP:R#D8, I propose delete-ing this redirect. Failing that, I propose weak retarget-ing to the dab page small penis as {{R from synonym}}.
-- Doug Mehus T·C 02:49, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Could also mean "tiny rooster". Hog Farm (talk) 03:44, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hog Farm Good point. Hadn't thought of that. Deletion is probably best then. One advantage to having this as a deletion discussion is we can probably speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4 if recreated shortly thereafter. --Doug Mehus T·C 05:31, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Human penis size rather than Small penis, which is a pretty poor dab page. As I said above, people searching stuff about the size of cocks are probably not looking for information about roosters. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 07:06, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't support that per the above discussion with Hog Farm due to the ambiguity. I'd recommend deletion or, failing that, retargeting to the dab page. We can easily add a reference to smaller roosters there, I think, eh Narky Blert? Doug Mehus T·C 07:33, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete either ambiguous and may cause confusion, or unencyclopaedic slang. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:10, 10 February 2020 (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.

Small dick syndrome[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 Human penis size. signed, Rosguill talk 06:13, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the current micropenis article, but we do have a human penis size article where small penis syndrome currently redirects and where that term is mentioned in the title of a bibliographic reference to a cited scientific academic journal paper. In terms of assessing its utility and usefulness per WP:R#K5 and WP:R#D8, it had 85 pageviews for the preceding twelve month, pre-nomination period. This is ~9-10 per month. It's slightly more than a borderline call, and it connects users to the content they are seeking. Thus, I'm recommending retarget-ing this to human penis size as {{R from related topic}} and {{R from more specific term}} where it is mentioned. Doug Mehus T·C 02:25, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a plausible search term and synonym that's well used, as noted in my nomination, which had concurrence from two other editors this far. Closing editor can add whatever rcats they feel useful, including {{R from synonym}}. Thus, it's a clear WP:R#K5 pass. Doug Mehus T·C 19:17, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't say I remember what I was thinking when recreating this after deleting a very long time ago, but the suggested retarget seems reasonable enough. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:56, 14 February 2020 (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.

Longn[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:28, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the current target micropenis article. A search for longn on Wikipedia turned up nothing. No context for why this is targeted here. In terms of utility per WP:R#K5, it had 27 pageviews for the preceding twelve month period from 9 February 2019—8 February 2020, so I'm recommending delete-ing this redirect per WP:R#D5 unless justification is, or alternatives are, provided. Doug Mehus T·C 02:11, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment WP:CSD#G1 and WP:CSD#G6 were declined by Cryptic, who concurred RfD was the "right call." So, barring any proposed alternatives, I'm reiterating my delete !vote. --Doug Mehus T·C 05:36, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Apparently nonsense. There is an entry for this on The Free Dictionary [1], but that site scrapes data from Wikipedia. Nothing else that I could find. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 07:06, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No obvious relationship to the current target. An unlikely misspelling of anything else; longene, for example, is too remote. Narky Blert (talk) 09:09, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Enwiki has nothing about "longn". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:15, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not helpful. As stated above, this is a bit of nonsense that's not notable at all and thus not worth keeping. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:15, 12 February 2020 (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.

Tiny penis[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 Small penis. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:53, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to have to bring another penis-related redirect to RfD, but as a side effect of all these discussions, we're finding even more related redirects. In terms of assessing usefulness and utility per WP:R#K5 or lack thereof per WP:R#D8, its pageviews from 9 February 2019—8 February 2020, the day preceding its nomination, it had nearly 1100 pageviews and averages 60-90 per month, so people are accessing it. However, it's not mentioned in the current target micropenis article. More importantly, though, per WP:R#D2, it is ambiguous in that there is no clearly defined guidelines on what constitutes a tiny penis (though some have tried, usually in the context of the men's locker room, but I digress).

As the current target article states, micropenis is a particular type of a small penis. Thus, similar to the WP:RFD for little dick, as an alternative to deletion and because of the utility in WP:R#K5, I propose retarget-ing to small penis (the dab page), as {{R from synonym}} and any other targets (where micropenis is already mentioned. Doug Mehus T·C 02:05, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's too ambiguous to redirect to human penis size due to the other potential targets. Can we assume you'd accept small penis as a second choice? We have a number of other redirects which have closed, or are expected to close, as retargeting to the dab page. Doug Mehus T·C 07:31, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Retarget to Human penis size. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:14, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Search is better. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:54, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That argument makes little sense to me, considering that all of the entries on Small penis relate to the human penis, and presumably that will always be the case since animals lack the cognitive faculties to be concerned about the size of their penises. Also, Human penis size has a hatnote about penis sizes in other animals. I was actually considering nominating the dab page for deletion but I thought it would be better to wait until the RFDs are closed so not to complicate things. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 16:49, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    RfD is not for cleanup of dab pages, though. Narky Blert, SpicyMilkBoy makes a good point. I think we should a reference to penis on what dab page, which covers all mammals. Can you look into how it do that? Doug Mehus T·C 17:19, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Off topic: Sorry for removing your comment earlier - I didn't realize that had happened. I think I may have been editing an old version of the page? SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 17:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC) [reply]
  • Comment (1) I have now proposed to merge small penis into penis (disambiguation). It's clear that the size of the small penis dab page has shrunk to a size that we don't need two penis-related dab pages. In view of that, SpicyMilkBoy, since we will have other penis-size-related redirects target there post-close, can you possibly consider retargeting to small penis? I suspect that the merge will go through. (2) No worries; and yeah, that makes sense. Doug Mehus T·C 19:56, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural update from nom comment little dick has closed as retarget to the disambiguation page small penis, and this redirect has a lot of usage, so it's a clear WP:R#K5 pass and an WP:R#D8 fail as it's a plausible and useful {{R from synonym}}. Doug Mehus T·C 19:20, 12 February 2020 (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/2020_February_10&oldid=1142586768"