This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 25, 2016.
- 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion wasdelete as unopposed.Deryck C.22:22, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This location isn't mentioned at the target article. It's mentioned ina few other places, but I'm not sure where it might be best retargeted. There might be a case for redlink, since populated places areautomatically notable, though it may be better treated in another article (Ghaziabad district, India?). This was described as a "colony" when it was created as a stub, but I don't know what that means in this context. It doesn't seem to fit any use atColony (disambiguation).BDD (talk)21:10, 25 February 2016 (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.
Relisted, seeWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 6#Walrus milk
- 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion wasdelete.Deryck C.22:21, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FORRED. I don't know what language this is, but no language has an inherent connection to milk.BDD (talk)17:05, 25 February 2016 (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.
Relisted, seeWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 8#Shenae
- 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion wasno consensus, default to keep the two items named byGuy1890;delete all others.Deryck C.00:11, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Surprise surprise,Sex position is one of those articles with aton of junk redirects, including some Neelix hyphenation play. None of these positions (I assume), or the one sex toy, are named at the target article, and they probably shouldn't be. (Also, "Wobbly H" sounds like a rapper.)
(I really should've nominated these yesterday, huh?) --BDD (talk)18:53, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the junk, but some of these may require in-depth field research to be absolutely sure. Does Neelix hyphenation play lead toWankstains? (no I did not make this up, he did!)Legacypac (talk)19:35, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - "Stand and carry", "triple penetration", and "wheelbarrow position" are all real things, which I could link to and start to detail but I'd really rather not. I'd encourage doubters to just use whatever search engine they see fit in the manner of which they see fit to peruse the evidence on their own time. The other links appear to vary greatly in quality to the extent that this discussion really should be broken up. Some of them appear to relate to highly peculiar definition-type questions (One may ask: "To what extent does tab A have to just approach fitting into slot B completely, or does B have to even be a 'slot' in the first place, to count as a 'penetration' in the one-two-three-four-etc tally?") and others seem to be nonsense (One may ask: "Is this metaphorical use of 'oil drilling' a failed attempt at stand-up comedy?").CoffeeWithMarkets (talk)04:38, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -Triple Penetration (as I see no reason for this spelling) and alsoWobbly H,Reverse piggy-back position,Reverse piggy-back,Drilling for oil (sex position),Drilling for Oil (Sex Position),Cleaning the Spoon,Triple-double penetration,Quadruple penetration,Quadruple Penetration,Quintuple penetration &Widely opened position (as I've either never heard of them and/or they are likely not widely known sexual positions).
- The other re-directs I don't have a strong opinion on at this time.Guy1890 (talk)07:28, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether the positions exist isn't really the question. Precisely because readers could be searching for them, we should delete these, because the information readers seek isn't available. --BDD (talk)16:46, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- My understanding of the purpose of redirects on Wikipedia is that they are to be used for"Alternative names, Closely related words, More specific forms of names", or "Sub-topics or other topics which are described or listed within a wider article". Some reasons for not deleting redirects include that they would"make the creation of duplicate articles less likely, whether by redirecting a plural to a singular, by redirecting a frequent misspelling to a correct spelling, by redirecting a misnomer to a correct term, by redirecting to a synonym, They aid searches on certain terms" or "Someone finds them useful". There area few Wikipedia pages that link to Triple penetration. Not to get too graphic here, but making someone "airtight" means filling all of their holes that can possibly be filled in the first place.Guy1890 (talk)06:31, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- We can use that as a checklist. Alternative names? No, none of these are simply synonyms for "sex position". Subtopicswhich are described or listed at the target article? No (note emphasis). Are they making the creation of a duplicate article less likely? Well, the best you can say is that an article on one of these positions could be merged into the target article, but that would be because it was a subtopic, not a duplicate. Does someone find them useful? I kind of doubt it. --BDD (talk)17:14, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I can understand that you are working hard in support of your nomination (which I overwhelmingly agree with BTW), but this is getting a little ridiculous at this late date. The only two terms that I support keeping at this time are, in fact, "specific forms" ofsex positions, which is an article that can obviously be expanded to include descriptions of them (in detail if needed - I even pondered doing it myself, but I wanted to see how the outcome of this discussion panned out first). Having this kind of information in the sex postion article would obviously "make the creation of duplicate articles less likely". The terms also obviously aid in "searches on certain terms". Also, I, for one, "find them useful", and I've already shown clearly that one of them is already being used a little on Wikipedia.Guy1890 (talk)08:26, 7 March 2016 (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.
Relisted, seeWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 4#Not Sure
List of ancient civilizations
[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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion waskeep, and refine target toCivilization#History. --BDD (talk)22:03, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete perWP:RFD#D5 nonsense,WP:REDLINK. Target is not a list of ancient (or modern) civilizations. I couldn't find a better target. Neither is linked internally; stats are temporarily unavailable (HTTP 503).Si Trew (talk)21:57, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. We do haveCategory:Ancient civilizations. Retarget there?Si Trew (talk)22:27, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Retarget toCategory:Ancient civilizations. I guess people dislike R's to categories asWP:XNRs, but since categories are in a user-facing namespace, I don't see the problem, providing the category is reasonably well-maintained (but that's just as true of lists, DABs and so on).Si Trew (talk)03:01, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, refining the redirect to specifically go toCivilization#History. I just searched for "List of ancient civilizations". The list that provides what I wanted, a list of civilizations broken up by time period and region of the world, is located atCivilization#History. The pageCategory:Ancient civilizations appears to be a redirect, so this certainly shouldn't redirect there. The page that category redirect to isCategory:Ancient peoples, but that seems much less useful than the list atCivilization, since the category isn't organized by time period and region, and also since the category isn't limited to pages on ancient civilizations.Calathan (talk)21:07, 26 February 2016 (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.
- 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion wasdelete. --BDD (talk)14:26, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The title does not specifically refer to Wikipedia, and no target could be found about main pages on wikis in general. -Champion (talk) (contribs)(FormerlyTheChampionMan1234)04:42, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Home page could be a possible retarget, but it's more general than wikis.ansh66604:47, 25 February 2016 (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.
Hungarian Revolution of 2010
[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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion wasdelete. --BDD (talk)14:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No incoming links, very few page views, not mentioned at target at all, no mention in media at all.Delete.ansh66601:39, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Seems like aWP:SURPRISE. -©2016 Compassionate727(Talk)(Contributions)14:29, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: in 2010, I created this redirect because Fidesz which gained two-thirds majority, called the election as "revolution" or "polling booth revolution" (Hungarian:fülkeforradalom) in 2010 speeches and statements. By now, they are "forgotten" this phrase. --Norden1990 (talk)23:16, 28 February 2016 (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.
