Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 25

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. There's certainly consensus to keep Nixonian. I still find consensus to keep the other two. It's weaker, but not weak enough for me to call it "no consensus", especially in the absence any compelling arguments in favor of deletion. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:46, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Nixonian → Richard Nixon  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Reaganian → Ronald Reagan  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Trumpian → Donald Trump  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 4#Bushian, should these be retargeted to the respective political positions articles, Clintonian points to Clintonism, but Fordian points to Henry Ford, and Johnsonian points to Samuel Johnson, not to any of the presidents with the surname, these could be nominated later on in a separate discussion. But note that Obaman, Carterian, Kennedian, Eisenhowerian, Trumanian and Rooseveltian all don't exist. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 01:24, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• At a minimum, "Nixonian" should be kept - this is a pretty common expression/term that I have encountered many times. Can't say I've seen or heard anyone use "Reaganian" or "Trumpian" before though. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:06, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Wiktionary has entries for all three. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 04:37, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - We should retain 'Nixonian' since the term is well-used enough to appear in reputable dictionaries (here's just one example). I'm not sure about the other two, though. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 14:56, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Nixonian is a very common expression that relates to the President and so should redirect there. E.g., [1] [2] [3]. Rlendog (talk) 20:03, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As has been noted, the first is prominent in the press.--
  WP:WAWARD) 17:48, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment Should it point to
  Political positions of Bill Clinton points to. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 22:12, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Nevermind, that doesn't exist. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 22:13, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all. "Trumpian" gets 100k+ Google news hits, and "Reaganian" does get a few hits there as well [4]. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:49, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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, verging on keep. I'll note that these terms are inherently imprecise. A person could be Reaganesque because he or she uses optimistic rhetoric; the rhetoric itself could be called Reaganesque, as could a policy which promotes supply-side economics. So try to refine these redirects to emphasize person or policy seems misguided. I thought Mr. Guye made a good point about the ambiguity of "Clintonesque"—sure, there are multiple notable Reagans and Trumps but, with respect, none at the level of Hillary Clinton. Still, to do something different with that redirect would've felt like a

WP:SUPERVOTE, and it's easy enough for a reader to get to Hillary Clinton, both in absolute terms and from Bill's article. --BDD (talk) 16:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• Reaganesque → Ronald Reagan  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Clintonesque → Bill Clinton  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Trumpesque → Donald Trump  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not sure if these are even plausible search terms, there are entries on Wiktionary, but the targets do not explain the terms, I think they are better off targeted to the political positions articles, but prefer deletion overall, I'll note Obamaesque, Bushesque, Carteresque, Fordesque etc. all don't exist. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 01:33, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. These are plausible search terms and I'd be happy to provide examples if needed. While redirects are cheap, it is much more important to note that eponyms like these sometimes crop up in literature without any explanation of who or what they may refer to. While these particular terms might be obvious to native speakers from the US, who they refer to may not be clear to others. Retaining a redirect here is better than having a soft redirect to Wiktionary. Many of the entries in Category:Redirects from eponyms do not have explanations for the term at the targets and don't really need them as -esque merely means "in the style or manner of". As to retargeting, these terms might be used to refer to their policy positions, but could just as easily refer to their demeanor or manner of speaking. gobonobo ^{+ c} 03:05, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still don't believe that keeping this would be helpful to readers for there is nothing relevant in any of the current targets, I would prefer a Wiktionary redirect if these are not deleted. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 04:31, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Given that terms such as 'Clintonesque' and 'Reaganesque' seem to be used in the context of ideological policies and political approaches, maybe we should direct them over to '
  Political positions of Bill Clinton' itself is merely a redirect right now, which I don't think is right, but that's a different issue.) As far as 'Trumpesque' is concerned, it seems more like an empty neologism without proper context or coverage to me. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 14:54, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment - I agree with CoffeeWithMarkets. Another option is to direct the terms to Wiktionary, since all three of these terms already have an entry, as CHAMPION stated before. HapHaxion (talk) 02:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A reader may see these terms in the public domain and search for it. Let's give them some info.--
  WP:WAWARD) 17:47, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Weak delete. I think

Thatcheresque; Reaganite -> Political positions of Ronald Reagan

.

Or perhaps it is meant as a

portmanteau word of grotesque and the person, like their Spitting Image puppets? Without evidence, it's hard to tell. Si Trew (talk) 20:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

@SimonTrew: I changed your "Thatcherite" markup, was that what you meant?--Mr. Guye (talk) 22:27, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• First of all, some personal semantics. I believe "-esque" suggests a literal or figurative resemblance to (root), and "-ian" refers to the ideology possessed by (root) or relating to the ideology possessed by (root), and "-ism" is something abstract related to (root). The suffixes are NOT interchangeable.

I have nuanced positions:

• Refine "Reaganesque" to Ronald Reagan#Cultural and political image which is more specific.
• Delete "Clintonesque" per
  WP:XY
  (Bill Clinton or Hillary Clinton?).
• Keep "Trumpesque" because we don't have a better target.---Mr. Guye (talk) 23:24, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to User:Mr. Guye for fixing mine. Bloody tablet "autocorrects" things when hitting "save page" so it looks fine until... too late... worse for Edit Summaries which have gotten to be bizarresque in that it will put in almost any other edit summary from any other article I ever edited if it happens to be in the drop-down box, of course one cannot then edit the edit summary...

I am not sure I agree with Mr. Guye's rough semantics. I presume that Guye chose the word "semantics" in opposition to "etymology", but a burlesque is not someone who resembles someone burly, nor is a grotesque particularly grotty. I think it is more that adding -esque is a bit like a diminutive in many languages such as Russian, Hungarin, and something we really haven't in English so an approximation to that – which is syntax or something perhaps, but not semantics. These remarks of course are all paranthesque. Si Trew (talk) 19:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 (re)target all to Agrostemma. (non-admin closure) – Uanfala (talk) 09:33, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Corncockle → Agrostemma githago  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Corn cockle → Agrostemma  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Corn-cockle → Agrostemma  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

These should all point to the same place. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 06:38, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget all to Agrostemma, a genus which has several species called corncockle, but only one of which, Agrostemma githago, currently has an article. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 06:49, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per Shhhnotsoloud. Thryduulf (talk) 09:26, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget all to Agrostemma. Generally when there's a plant genus with a common name of Foo which contains a species that is known either as Foo or Common Foo, the Foo redirect points to the genus. Compare
  Sunflower/Common sunflower. Plantdrew (talk) 01:22, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Retarget all as above. Si Trew (talk) 20:45, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak retarget all per
  precedent made aware to us by Plantdrew. But I am a little uncomfortable with it. --Mr. Guye (talk) 22:22, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]