Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 July 9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Spongefrog (talk | contribs) at 09:26, 13 July 2010 (→‎Huge penis: dsg). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

July 9

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 9, 2010

Templates in Wikipedia

Pointless cross-namespace redirect B (talk) 20:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I have alerted the creator. Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - redirects from article to project space are never a good idea since inexperienced users can easily find themselves adrift in unfamiliar territory. There is no sensible retarget. Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I don't agree that they are never a good idea (I would say "almost" never a good idea) nor that they would create a problem for inexperienced users, this particular one is completely pointless self reference. Someone looking for templates might look for template (which has a link to the relevant help page), but would not search for "templates in Wikipedia". --B (talk) 00:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Solar Generation

Delete. The redirect is confusing, created by possible sock puppet of user:Mac. There is no indication what connection Solar Generation has with Greenpeace Beagel (talk) 15:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Solar power for which it seems a plausible search term. Bridgeplayer (talk) 16:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is a group within Greenpeace called Solar Generation. If someone adds information about them to the Greenpeace page, a dab might be the best solution. --Muhandes (talk) 18:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment; Ah, good catch, that's the reason for the redirect, then. If someone adds a section to the Greenpeace page then, I agree, it should be dabified but at the mo' it would just be confusing. Bridgeplayer (talk) 19:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cita web

The template redirect is misleading since editors expect it to work like the "cita web" template on the Spanish wiki, so they copy paste refs. Except the field names are totally different and it ends up in CAT:AWBC (where I cleaned 20 or so of them before thinking I'm doing a needless job). So either it is made an exact copy if "cita web", or completely deleted to avoid this. Muhandes (talk) 13:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I have notified the creator who is still around from time to time. It would be helpful if nominators would kindly do this. Bridgeplayer (talk) 13:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought I did that. Now I see, I notified the creator of the page, not the one who actually made it into a redirect. Nice catch, thanks. --Muhandes (talk) 14:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the redirect should stop future use. However, deleting this redirect will create a whole bunch of red links for little benefit. Since the concern is with the underlying template, WP:TFD might be a better forum. Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fix transclusions and delete per nom. There would be some potential benefit of replacing the template with an exact copy of the one on the Spanish Wikipedia to facilitate copying articles, but leaving it as a redirect is not useful at all. --B (talk) 00:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. This is not the Spanish Wikipedia. Citing web sources is not something that is primarily a Spanish language activity, or an activity invented on the Spanish Wikipedia. 76.66.192.55 (talk) 04:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MSN Money

Although MSN Money is a part of MSN, redirecting people to MSN makes no sense at all: MSN article contains no info about MSN Money. I considered redirecting to List of MSN Services but that would be equally making no sense. After all, everyone who hears the name "MSN Money" already realizes that it is an MSN service. Why redirect people to an article which has nothing on MSN Money? Fleet Command (talk) 10:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to List of MSN Services#Services. This was formerly an article and I have merged the previous content and added a source. For GFDL reasons we need to keep the history somewhere and this redirect is the most convenient method. I do not see this site as being sufficiently notable for its own page, so there is no benefit in having a red link and the retarget is potentially useful. I would add that this redirect gets a lot of hits, so it is well used. Bridgeplayer (talk) 14:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Huh? What GFDL reason? Fleet Command (talk) 18:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Aren't you going to tell us about these GFDL reasons? Well, if you don't, I'll have no choice but to assume what seems logical to me: That there is no GFDL reason whatsoever to prevent us from deleting this redirect; and that you are merely emotional about keeping this redirect. Fleet Command (talk) 16:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • And by the way, Wikipedia:Red link says red links help expand Wikipedia. So, I'd rather have a red link instead of an annoying redirect. In time, we can always delete an annoying redirect AND unlink all links to it, if it is ever needed. Fleet Command (talk) 16:59, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Teh Butt Seckz

Totally frivolous redirect of no value.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 08:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Teh ghey

This redirect should be deleted as an implausible typo or uncommon synonym. It appears to me that this is a combination of the Internet slang words teh and ghey. エムエックスさん 07:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huge dick

Implausible search term, delete per WP:R#DELETE, item 8. It's highly unlikely that someone is going to genuinely use this search term to find the Human penis size article. Also, there are few or no links to this redirect. SnottyWong spout 16:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC) [reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gigantic penis

Implausible search term, delete per WP:R#DELETE, item 8. It's highly unlikely that someone is going to genuinely use this search term to find the Human penis size article. Also, there are few or no links to this redirect. SnottyWong chatter 16:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC) [reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huge penis

Implausible search term, delete per WP:R#DELETE, item 8. It's highly unlikely that someone is going to genuinely use this search term to find the Human penis size article. Also, there are few or no links to this redirect. SnottyWong confabulate 16:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC) [reply]

  • Keep - point 8 applies to a "novel or very obscure synonym". I don't find this term either novel nor particularly obscure. Plenty of hits, here, so sufficient potential for someone wishing to look this up. This redirect gets around 1,000 hits a month so it is plainly used as a search term. Bridgeplayer (talk) 20:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete could be talking about horse penises in those "special" porn videos. 76.66.195.196 (talk) 20:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - sorry, but my judgement is that the high probability is that the searches were aimed at the target. Very many redirects have remote alternative meanings, but we can't cover all bases and when, as here, there is a target that is highly likely to be the prime use, then that is sufficient. Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one is arguing that if you type "Huge penis" into google, you're not going to get a billion results. That really has no relevance to this discussion. The question is whether or not "Huge penis" is a valid redirect to Human penis size. The adjectives "big", "huge", "massive", "gigantic", "9-inch", etc. combined with various slang terms for penis are exactly what I would consider novel and obscure. If someone was truly looking for Human penis size, they would most likely search for something like "penis size" or "size of penis" or "penis size stats", not "Huge penis". SnottyWong speak 22:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since it looks as though I am being followed down this page with pro-forma comments, I guess that a pro-forma reply is reasonable. In my view many of these terms, but not all as distinguished in my comments, are entirely plausible search terms, particularly as borne out by the stats. What may or may not be the most likely search term actually doesn't matter. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure whose comments you are referring to as "pro-forma", but mine certainly were not meant to be. What the most likely search term is doesn't really matter, however it does matter if the search term is particularly unlikely. This is why we don't redirect Apple to Orange. If you think that this redirect is a plausible search term, then I imagine you won't mind if I create the following similar redirects:
List of similar redirects for Human penis size
  • Ample anaconda
  • Bulky boner
  • Capacious choad
  • Colossal chubby
  • Copious cornholer
  • Enormous ding-a-ling
  • Excessive doinker
  • Extensive dong
  • Generous dork
  • Giant hard-on
  • Gigantic hog
  • Grand johnson
  • Hefty knob
  • Huge love muscle
  • Humongous main vein
  • Immeasurable meat popsicle
  • Immense member
  • Jumbo one-eyed monster
  • Massive pecker
  • Monumental pocket rocket
  • Mountainous prick
  • Plentiful rod
  • Sizable schlong
  • Spacious schmeckel
  • Stupendous shaft
  • Substantial skin flute
  • Thumping tallywhacker
  • Vast tonsil tickler
  • Voluminous tool
  • Wide trouser snake
  • Weighty wang
  • Big wiener
  • 14-inch willy

SnottyWong converse 04:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC) [reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete all - They're all just made up, no-one uses terms like that. I hope. Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 09:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You made that list to make a point? You, sir, clearly have too much time on your hands. Still, delete it anyway. Per nom, Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 09:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huge cock

Implausible search term, delete per WP:R#DELETE, item 8. It's highly unlikely that someone is going to genuinely use this search term to find the Human penis size article. Also, there are few or no links to this redirect. SnottyWong squeal 16:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC) [reply]

  • Keep - point 8 applies to a "novel or very obscure synonym". When even the staid Guardian uses this phrase, it is unlikely to be either novel nor particularly obscure and is certainly a plausible search term. A few hundred hits each month mean that is is used and I see no grounds for deletion. Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one is arguing that if you type "Huge cock" into google, you're not going to get a billion results. That really has no relevance to this discussion. The question is whether or not "Huge cock" is a valid redirect to Human penis size. The adjectives "big", "huge", "massive", "gigantic", "9-inch", etc. combined with various slang terms for penis are exactly what I would consider novel and obscure. If someone was truly looking for Human penis size, they would most likely search for something like "penis size" or "size of penis" or "penis size stats", not "Huge cock". SnottyWong comment 22:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since it looks as though I am being followed down this page with pro-forma comments, I guess that a pro-forma reply is reasonable. In my view many of these terms, but not all as distinguished in my comments, are entirely plausible search terms, particularly as borne out by the stats. What may or may not be the most likely search term actually doesn't matter. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure whose comments you are referring to as "pro-forma", but mine certainly were not meant to be. What the most likely search term is doesn't really matter, however it does matter if the search term is particularly unlikely. This is why we don't redirect Apple to Orange. If you think that this redirect is a plausible search term, then I imagine you won't mind if I create the following similar redirects:
List of similar redirects for Human penis size
  • Ample anaconda
  • Bulky boner
  • Capacious choad
  • Colossal chubby
  • Copious cornholer
  • Enormous ding-a-ling
  • Excessive doinker
  • Extensive dong
  • Generous dork
  • Giant hard-on
  • Gigantic hog
  • Grand johnson
  • Hefty knob
  • Huge love muscle
  • Humongous main vein
  • Immeasurable meat popsicle
  • Immense member
  • Jumbo one-eyed monster
  • Massive pecker
  • Monumental pocket rocket
  • Mountainous prick
  • Plentiful rod
  • Sizable schlong
  • Spacious schmeckel
  • Stupendous shaft
  • Substantial skin flute
  • Thumping tallywhacker
  • Vast tonsil tickler
  • Voluminous tool
  • Wide trouser snake
  • Weighty wang
  • Big wiener
  • 14-inch willy

SnottyWong squeal 04:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC) [reply]

  • Delete could be talking about horse penises in those "special" porn videos. 76.66.195.196 (talk) 23:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - with respect, it could also be talking about a large rooster, but the high probability is that the searches were aimed at the target. Very many redirects have remote alternative meanings, but we can't cover all bases and when, as here, there is a target that is highly likely to be the prime use, then that is sufficient. Having said that, there is a conceivable disamb page here, and that can be created, at any time, if alternative uses are considered sufficiently likely. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - none of these, apart from the heading, exist - they were part of a straw-man argument by the nominator. Bridgeplayer (talk) 15:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Find-me anywhere

Created by banned User:Mac, I believe this redirect meets the deletion criterion "a novel or very obscure synonym." My Google search reveals no real world use of term, save for a Facebook page that someone (Mac?) has created to promote this very term, with a sole member. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some more African non-glaciers

Delete per previous WP:RFD discussions (Glaciers of Gabon, Glaciers of many). Sideways713 (talk) 09:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, confusing redirects for which the target provides no substantial information.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 22:16, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EBOY-TV

Implausible and bad redirect. NeutralhomerTalk • 03:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC) 03:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It's mentioned on some guy named Bray Cary's profile page and a handful of copies thereof, but appears to be a spelling mistake, and I can't find any evidence that any such thing exists. I notice that the creator of this redirect created Bray Cary shortly before (which, BTW, I've tagged as a copyvio of [1]). Confusing and unhelpful, as well as implausible because U.S. television station call letters cannot start with E.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 04:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - confusing. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GTRF-TV

Implausible and bad redirect. NeutralhomerTalk • 03:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC) 03:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ETRF-TV

Implausible and bad redirect. NeutralhomerTalk • 03:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC) 03:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chinga

Deletion. Chinga is the Spanish F-word, and so its use far exceeds a 20-year old shark jumping. If anything, redirect it to the English F-word. Mrcolj (talk) 14:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Spanish profanity#Verbs denoting sexual acts, and then put the following hatnote on top of it: {{Redirect|Chinga|the 1998 ''X-Files'' episode|The X-Files (season 5)}}. I agree that the profanity seems like a much more probably intended target for this query. It would also be nice, if this is the decision, to update the seven or so pages that link to Chinga.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 16:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Converted to disambiguation page. I am not an expert on Spanish profanity, but I am not convinced that this is the prime use, particularly after looking at the incoming links and a Gsearch. I have, therefore, dabified it which seems a much more helpful option. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the now existing disambiguation. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]