Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 6: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 12: Line 12:


It's a bad redirect, folks. [[User:Remsense|<span style="border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]][[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000">诉</span>]] 08:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
It's a bad redirect, folks. [[User:Remsense|<span style="border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]][[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000">诉</span>]] 08:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

:Why? [[User:Blaze The Movie Fan|Blaze The Movie Fan]] ([[User talk:Blaze The Movie Fan|talk]]) 08:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)


====Sucking peepee====
====Sucking peepee====

Revision as of 08:53, 6 May 2024

< May 5
May 7 >

May 6

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 6, 2024.

Ancient United States

It's a bad redirect, folks. Remsense诉 08:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 08:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sucking peepee

I think the title makes it obvious why. Yes, it's technically pointing to the correct page, but seriously. I doubt "Sucking peepee" is really an encyclopedic redirect to have. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 23:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Redirects are allowed to be "unencyclopedic". This is an unambiguous redirect, so it's valid. Fieari (talk) 23:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Being a comprehensible synonym isn't sufficient grounds to include an expression. Yes, redirects are cheap—very cheap—but that doesn't mean we need to go Full Neelix and include every possible comprehensible synonym that no one would ever use. If there are actually instances of people searching for this, I'd be fine with it; but are there? Google Trends says no. (That one spike today is me just checking.) Please delete this, before someone decides that if this works, then so does hoovering hoohaa, lapping labia, tonguing twat, and savoring snatch, none of which are on Google Trends.[citation needed] (Actually, I didn't bother to check; but wouldn't it be something if one of them *is* on Trends, whereas sucking peepee is not? Then what are we gonna do?) Mathglot (talk) 05:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Mathglot. Can successfully get to this target from a plethora of different searches, including but not limited to, Google. Utopes (talk / cont) 07:22, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Unlikely/unhelpful search terms. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • torn between voting to delete based on "peepee" being a general term for the thing that expels the bladder juice (i'm sure there's a better term for that), and to keep based on it being funny
    ultimately though, i'd say retarget them to sexual intercourse or a more general target. can't check for a specific target at the moment, my isp would have me killed within the next 3 hours cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 17:56, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Utopes. Jay 💬 18:05, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mathglot; we don't need redirects for every euphemism people might invent. And when it comes to sex acts, there are a lot. Crossroads -talk- 23:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 00:44, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:CHEAP and as plausible search terms, and tag with {{R from colloquial name}}. To respond to concerns in the nomination, redirects are allowed to be unencyclopedic - I’m not aware of a policy/guideline that disallows such redirects, and WP:RNEUTRAL states that perceived lack of neutrality in redirect names is not a sufficient reason for their deletion. Arguments have been made above regarding the likelihood of these as search terms — however, google:"sucking+peepee" tells me that the phrase is one that is in use on the wider Internet, and these therefore strike me as plausible search terms (engaging WP:R#K3). The question I’m asking myself is ‘could these redirects potentially refer to articles besides the current target?’ - and, from what I can see, they seem fairly unambiguous.
    Would I have created these redirects myself? Probably not. However, are they problematic such that they require deletion? My answer to that question is no — and therefore, my !vote is to keep: just because Wikipedia doesn’t need these redirects doesn’t mean that the project and/or readers are harmed by their existence. To respond to Mathglot’s and Crossroads' concerns regarding potential other redirects being created, pandora’s-box-style arguments are a form of WP:OTHERSTUFF: if such redirects are created, they can be judged on their own merits (including deletion per WP:R#D8 if a novel or very obscure term without a mention in the article) - and the currently nominated redirects should be judged on their own merits likewise. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 10:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If your argument is based on a google search telling you that "that the phrase is one that is in use on the wider Internet" I would have to respond, "Do you have any idea how small a number 49 results is on the entire internet?" That is functionally equivalent to zero. Some statistician among us might estimate the number of unique English bigrams on the internet with over 49 hits, and that number would be enormous, but they don't all rate redirects, only the ones searched for possibly do. There is no evidence that anybody searched for this bigram (at least, before this thread was started). Mathglot (talk) 23:07, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If it would help, I could link individual pages which use this term. In my mind, the question is whether or not this is a novel or very obscure phrase, and - based on the usage I found from the search - my opinion is that it doesn’t meet that bar. (As a side note, I’m unsure where 49 results originates from - for me, the search returns ~1,700.) Given the size of the internet, lots of terms could be said to have a usage functionally equivalent to zero; however, if a redirect from such a term would potentially be helpful, and its existence wouldn’t be problematic, I don’t see why it couldn’t exist - just because a phrase is insignificant compared to the internet as a whole, doesn’t necessarily mean that that phrase is novel or very obscure. While evidence of usage can be a factor in favour of keeping, a lack of usage is not a reason to delete a redirect. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 10:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per {{R from colloquial name}}.See Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_April_25#Kissing_pussy GobsPint (talk) 22:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And you voted 'Keep' there, per... this discussion. Hmm. Mathglot (talk) 23:15, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - if a reader wants information on these topics, the current target is where they will find it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:58, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – an Unlikely and unhelpful search terms. Drdpw (talk) 18:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Useless. Wikipedia is not a profanity de-censorer. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:20, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or delete? (I count 9 deletes and 4 keeps.)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Duckmather (talk) 07:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scranton lax

No mention of "lax" or a lax team at the target, inferred from history. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:59, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: We mention they have a facility that they use for lacrosse a regulation-size field for men's and women's soccer which also can be used for other sports such as lacrosse and they do have both men and women's lacrosse. So improving the article would be fine; but there's no reason to delete this redirect even as-is. Skynxnex (talk) 14:03, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Duckmather (talk) 07:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rkkody

No mention of this former cult member at the target article, in any form, it seems. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He is actually mentioned. According to CBS News this was Chuck Humphrey's cult name. Humphrey is mentioned here. I could add a mention this was his name in the group, if you'd like? PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:43, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Duckmather (talk) 07:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shuggie

No mention of "Shuggie" as a nickname at the target article. Could also be confused with Shruggie. Utopes (talk / cont) 04:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Duckmather (talk) 06:59, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Supplemental Result

A topic not discussed at the target page, as "supple" nor "supplement" ever appear at the target page. Was BLAR'd in 2017 as being based on almost entirely unreliable sources, but does not serve its purpose as a good redirect if there is no content to be read about this at PageRank. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:12, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Google's Supplemental Results (technically still there - just not labeled as such) were not relevant to an article about the PageRank algorithm. Technically, the Supplemental Results are all the low-value content for which Google makes room available in its index, but they're not likely to be selected for competitive (high-interest) queries. Nor are the pages likely to be recrawled or refreshed very often. The only real connection anyone from Google ever confirmed was that these types of pages usually had very little PageRank. It would be more appropriate to redirect the page to the article about Google and add something there, assuming a suitable resource could be found (probably one of Danny Sullivan's articles from Search Engine Land from around 2006-2010). Michael Martinez (talk) 06:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an article from 2007: Google Dumps The Supplemental Results Label (searchengineland.com) Danny Sullivan now works for Google but in 2007 he was just a journalist covering search engines. Michael Martinez (talk) 06:33, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further thoughts on page history?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Duckmather (talk) 06:58, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Modmin

No mention of this term at the target article. Almost assuredly has a plethora of other uses outside of... just Fark. The portmanteau of "mod" and "admin" is likely to come up in a number of other more relevant contexts related to moderation and administration. Cautiously though, this term has zero mentions on all Wikipedia, so I'm hesitant to just "retargeting and calling it good". Utopes (talk / cont) 06:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 14:31, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete? Retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Duckmather (talk) 06:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SuperCops Vs Super Villains

Misspelled alt titles. Someonewhoisusinginternet (talk) 06:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed. But miscapitalization is not that big of a deal, and not enough reason to warrant deletion. That is why {{R from miscapitalisation}} exists. CycloneYoris talk! 21:11, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What about the other 4 redirects I mentioned above? Someonewhoisusinginternet (talk) 04:06, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further thoughts on the other 4 redirects?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Duckmather (talk) 06:51, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harley Quinn (pornographic actor)

I can't determine why this redirects here. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:39, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: it seems like her screen name used to be/occasionally was, based on the IMDb [1] page and (all following links may contain pornography) [2] and just general Google search results showing video titles that mention both names "Bailey Jay" "quinn". Now, redirects don't need quite the same level of reliable sourcing to exist so I'm still on the fence if this is useful enough to exist and if a mention of the name could be added in the article. Skynxnex (talk) 20:29, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Duckmather (talk) 06:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Red Room

Far too ambiguous; a redirect from new (movie name) to the movie's sequel probably isn't necessary. Throw New Red Room The Broken Dolls and New Red Room: The Broken Dolls in there as unnecessary, and Red Secret Room 2 as no sources discuss the movie with this title. I'll try to learn the batch nomination thing. NotAGenious (talk) 16:53, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Japanese title is New Red Room: The Broken Dolls. The article about the film on the Italian Wikipedia is Red Secret Room 2.--LadybugStardust (talk) 17:04, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further thoughts on LadybugStardust's findings?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Duckmather (talk) 06:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Antisemitism in the Australian Greens

Not mentioned in main article Australian Greens. Not a plausible search term, appears to be an attempt at a POV-fork. AusLondonder (talk) 14:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete, or wait for the talk page discussion to end?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Duckmather (talk) 06:47, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ruby on Iaails

Similar to Ruby on Яails, this is another typo (from Eubot), so I also suggest deletion. Duckmather (talk) 04:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ruby on Яails

Pretty much a textbook instance of a unnatural typo (the creator wrote in their edit summary "someone lock this so Willy can't do anything bad" though), so I suggest deletion. Duckmather (talk) 04:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual technology

This redirect targets a section that doesn't exist. Also, "virtual technology" is not the same thing as "technology" in general. I would guess that a more useful place to point this to would be something like Computing or Virtual world or Virtual reality or similar. However, this phrase also seems inherently vague so I would understand it if anyone !voted for a delete. Duckmather (talk) 04:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drove

Yet another confusing vocabulary word redirect, since "drove" is also the past tense of "drive". I suggest either disambiguating between driving and drovers' road or retargeting to wiktionary. Duckmather (talk) 03:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_May_6&oldid=1222499603"