Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 10

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

February 10

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

Holden McGroin

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]
    • @
      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
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]
  • Keep all per
    WP:R#K5
    ; failing that,
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
consensus close the rcats of each redirect. Doug Mehus T·C 01:36, 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]
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
    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.
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

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
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]

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]

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

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

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
    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

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]

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

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]

  • Retarget (was weak-ish retarget) to
    History of freemasonry#Degrees and rituals of Freemasonry. If more targets emerge, this could be a potential dab page in the future. What do you think, Narky Blert? --Doug Mehus T·C 19:25, 3 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

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]
    @
    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
    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

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

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
    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
]
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)

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

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

J.r.r.

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
(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

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

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

Ringwil

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]

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

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
]

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
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

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

Discoveries in medicine

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
(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

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,./

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
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

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
(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

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

Aparador

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

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]
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)

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

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
(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

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

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

not a dictionary, and this helps us enforce that.Amended Thanks. Doug Mehus T·C 07:15, 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.

Tadger

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

Short penis

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

Small dick

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

R from related topic}}. Doug Mehus T·C 03:15, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

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
]
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

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

R from related topic}}. Doug Mehus T·C 03:08, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Comment Noting
    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
    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

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

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

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

small penis as {{R from synonym}}.
-- Doug Mehus T·C 02:49, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

WP:CSD#G4 if recreated shortly thereafter. --Doug Mehus T·C 05:31, 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

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

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 {{
WP:R#K5 pass. Doug Mehus T·C 19:17, 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.

Longn

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

WP:R#D5 unless justification is, or alternatives are, provided. Doug Mehus T·C 02:11, 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 penis

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

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,

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
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]
  • Comment I strongly oppose retargeting to
    perhaps boldly. Doug Mehus T·C 16:21, 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?
talk) 17:21, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_February_10&oldid=1142586768"