Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 27

< Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion | Log

May 27

edit

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 27, 2019.

AEW

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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was WP:SNOW Keep. Requested on my talk by starship.paint, but regardless it's SNOWing here.

No closing comment on changing links, except to say that it's probably best not to do so for the very link currently under discussion. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:35, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose redirect to All Elite Wrestling as primary topic based on vastly superior page views. - starship.paint (talk) 23:45, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • All Elite Wrestling averaged 13,802 views per day [1] from day before article start of 31 December 2018 to 26 May 2019 and was in the top 1000 most viewed pages for April 2019.
  • Airborne early warning and control averaged 518 views per day [2] from 1 July 2015 (no older records) to 3 November 2018 (before All Elite Wrestling was applied as a trademark).
  • Even at All Elite Wrestling's lowest daily viewership (4,049 views on first day of creation 1 January 2019) - it's still more than twice of the highest daily viewership of Airborne early warning and control (1,701 views on 14 April 2018). starship.paint (talk) 02:20, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Oknazevad, STATicVapor, Aldis90, NiD.29, and Enochlau: - creators of the redirect / disambiguation or the people who responded to my previous BOLD edit to redirect. starship.paint (talk) 23:51, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. This is far too soon. AEW is a well-established term in aeronautics. The current destination on AEW&C is a relative neologism incorporating two separate topics, while the wrestling usage has current popularity as much because because it is new as anything else. A propsal to merge AEW (disambiguation) in here might stand more chance, but even that is still too soon. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:40, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now per Steelpillow. While I expect that the change might need to be made eventually, only three days after the wrestling promotion's first ever event is too soon to determine definitively, as the recent stream of news related to it likely inflating the readership, and longer-term significance can't yet be established. I'm wary of changing a well-established redirect of a technical term with such short term results. oknazevad (talk) 10:54, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Steelpillow and Oknazevad: - assuming the exact same continued popularity, after how long would it be the right time? starship.paint (talk) 11:20, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The right time is when somebody goes, "heck, it's high time this was updated, the wrestling usage is more than a mere local US thing now and has been in use so long it has eclipsed the much older worldwide usage - and I have the stats to prove it." Until then, it should stay as is. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk)
  • Oppose no need to change a well established and widely known usage for something new and little known. MilborneOne (talk) 11:16, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The wrestling usage fails to meet the criteria for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, which emphasises primacy of both usage and long-term significance. It is far too early to determine the latter. Rosbif73 (talk) 11:19, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Since you say it's early, do you have a concept of when would it be the right time? starship.paint (talk) 11:25, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, we're comparing a concept first implemented in 1945 with a series of events backed by a company founded less than 6 months ago. I can't see how the usage criterion could justifiably override the long-term significance within less than a decade or so! Rosbif73 (talk) 11:34, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay. Thanks for clarifying Rosbif73. starship.paint (talk) 11:40, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. The question the OP hasn't addressed is the actually important one: how many people are typing "AEW" into the search bar, looking for the article on the wrestling promotion? Raw pageviews of articles don't really tell us much, since most readers are likely hitting the articles via google (especially pop culture stuff). A better way to evaluate this is to look at how many people are hitting the dab page. There was a large spike in pageviews for the AEW (disambiguation) page in January 2019, coinciding with when the organization was announced, but that spike has since dropped off significantly. Given the stability of page views over the long term, we can safely assume the increased volume comes from the wrestling promotion, but, the drop off suggests that those concerned with WP:RECENTISM have a valid point. Parsecboy (talk) 11:57, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Parsecboy: - this isn't an argument against you, just a question. I recently linked the All Elite Wrestling page directly on Airborne early warning and control. As such, if viewers are not going to the disambiguation page, there would be no longer be any way to determine how many people are typing "AEW" into the search bar, looking for the article on the wrestling promotion, right? starship.paint (talk) 13:34, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, but you did that today; it would have no relevance to the steep drop off since January. Parsecboy (talk) 13:36, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Parsecboy: - yes, I did. As I said, I wasn't arguing against your point. I am actually referring to future views. starship.paint (talk) 13:53, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose AEW has put on one show, it could easily be WP:RECENTISM if the promotion were to vanish at this point. I think its best to move the disambiguation page to AEW, for now. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 12:51, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, period. This is supposedly an encyclopedia-in-the-making, not a supermarket checkout line magazine. A long-term technical subject with scholarly research should always trump advertising ephemera. Qwirkle (talk) 12:56, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's hardly a good argument. Whilst I agree oppose, saying that no matter what, a technical subject should defeat a company is ridiculous. If All Elite Wrestling had the notability of the WWE, then it would make complete sense. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:45, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Were one to have an article about a company, that is. At the moment the article is advertising ephemera, and likely to remain so for at least a few years. Qwirkle (talk) 13:59, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Looking at wikipolicy on the subject of Primary Topic, we have "A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term". At this time I don't see that a wrestling team ticks the boxes for having the greater enduring notability across the English-speaking world nor the educational value. This wrestling group is too recent to show up significantly in google ngrams and the current flurry of pageviews may be down to the initial rush of interest. The situation may change of course, and it might become primary topics, or it might be that there is no primary topic. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:09, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Long term historical use definitely seems to me like the aviation designation has more importance. One could say that in the future the wrestling usage may be more common, but that leans towards WP:CRYSTALBALL for me. To me its seems like the All Elite Wrestling usage reflects a more current event and not long term usage. It is said that far more people searching AEW will look for wrestling instead of aviation, but seems hard to prove. Before today I have never heard of "All Elite wrestling", and it seems local to the US while "Airborne early warning" is a military concept that is known worldwide. This all is suggesting to me that a change is not needed. Redalert2fan (talk) 21:43, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please note that User:Galatz is delinking articles from AEW related to aviation while this discussion is still open and after I reverted back pointing out it this discussion was still open is now edit warring to de-link the term. MilborneOne (talk) 16:00, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
While piping links is valid, my understanding is that linking to a redirect is preferred, if available. Only reason I've heard of is that it uses less space on Wiki's servers. I'm not a computer guy, so I don't know if this is valid, just what the big guys told me. --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:20, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We simply should follow what the sources say. starship.paint (talk) 02:40, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Redirect#Do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken says the MoS. And altering links during a discussion could look an attempt to fix the stats. It would certainly change the "what links here" which could be relevant to editors understanding of the extent of the usage of the term being redirected. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:10, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, nobody has quoted the stats with regarding to what links there. Secondly, the usage of the term being redirected must be the correct usage. If your source says AEW&C, or Airborne early warning or AWACS, but editors link AEW, that would be incorrect. starship.paint (talk) 08:15, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that propose of the change User:Starship.paint has also started changing or removing links related to AEW related aircraft/military articles while this discussion is still open. MilborneOne (talk) 07:13, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What's the matter? This is all a separate matter from this discussion. The thing is, you have a problem with your articles. If the sources say AEW&C, the article should link it as AEW&C, not AEW. If the sources say airborne early warning (AEW), the article should say airborne early warning (AEW), not just AEW. If the source said airborne early warning and control but the article wrote AEW, I would change it to airborne early warning and control. If your articles have unsourced parts, they will be questioned or removed. It's as simple as that. starship.paint (talk) 07:53, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for many of the reasons already stated. Looks to me like we have a consensus.
Comment @Steelpillow: AEW&C is actually an older term dating from the 1950s. AWAC is more current. Not that this impacts your argument, though.--Lineagegeek (talk) 22:20, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected. Thanks. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:33, 30 May 2019 (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.

Tera Yaar Hoon Main

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'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) 03:59, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not clear why this redirect exists. It may just be the title of the target in another language, but I wasn't able to actually conclude that based on the target and provided sources. signed, Rosguill talk 23:16, 27 May 2019 (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.

Oregonship

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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy keep. Source provided justifying the redirect, withdrawing nomination (non-admin closure) signed, Rosguill talk 00:00, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target, or its sources. signed, Rosguill talk 23:10, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Lord Bolingbroke, that looks good enough. Withdrawing discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 23:57, 27 May 2019 (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.

Pakistani television shows

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'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) 04:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not included in target list signed, Rosguill talk 22:47, 27 May 2019 (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.

Pakistani actors

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'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) 04:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Not included in the target, no indication that any of these actors meets WP:LSC. signed, Rosguill talk 22:44, 27 May 2019 (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.

Nom nom

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'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 Nom (disambiguation). (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 04:34, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An internet search for this phrase returns rather generic eating-related results, and according to the article, Cookie Monster's catchphrase is "Om nom nom nom" signed, Rosguill talk 22:41, 27 May 2019 (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.

Kæmpernes Arena

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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy keep. Sources provided justifying redirect, withdrawing nomination. (non-admin closure) signed, Rosguill talk 01:52, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target or the Danish-language article, I'm wondering if this was a mistake that should be retargeted to another stadium which is known by that name. If no valid target is found, then deletion is the way to go. signed, Rosguill talk 22:24, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you had looked at the de-wiki, you would have seen the name mentioned including references. The name have now been added to the article. Satisfied? Froztbyte (talk) 01:48, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Froztbyte yep, thanks for providing the source, withdrawing nomination. signed, Rosguill talk 01:52, 28 May 2019 (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.

Ghadhasaru and Mahakali Lake

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'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) 04:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deletion as a WP:XY resulting from a page split. —Ketil Trout (<><!) 22:17, 27 May 2019 (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.

Relativity drive

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 June 5#Relativity drive

Impossible Space Drive

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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 04:34, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Uncommon term to refer to a fringe science concept. – SJ + 21:38, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Actually plenty of use of this exact phrase in sources (usually headlines) to refer to this topic. It's correct and unambiguous so there is no reason to delete. Thryduulf (talk) 08:13, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As pointed out above, plenty of media outlets refer to the drive in this way. That says nothing about the viability of the drive, though, so bear that in mind. This issue has been discussed before by me and another editor who confronted this notion, but they eventually agreed on the current variant. O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅? 20:26, 28 May 2019 (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.

Impossible Drive

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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 04:34, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not a common term for a fringe science concept. When used, 'impossible' is in scare quotes. – SJ + 21:37, 27 May 2019 (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.

K. Malik Shabazz

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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 04:35, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target. If we believe the Pro Wrestling Wikia this wrestler used this name for a short while in 2002 (during a stint with Xtreme Pro Wrestling that isn't mentioned in the target either), however I can't find a reliable source that would support this and, since the redirect was created in 2005 and the name has at times been listed in the article's infobox, there's a risk of citogenesis. Even if a reliable source verifying the association could be found, I'm not sure the name would need to be listed in the article (WP:INDISCRIMINATE, though listing every name a person has used does seem to be commonplace in wrestling biographies), and the redirect is needlessly confusing as long as the name doesn't appear in the article. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:29, 27 May 2019 (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.

Susan Baker (professor)

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'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 Susan Baker (disambiguation). (The proposal to move Susan Baker (disambiguation) to Susan Baker can be discussed and/or determined at a different venue.) (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 15:14, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Baker (professor) has been moved to a WP:NATURAL disambiguation, Susan Pardee Baker. Susan Baker is also a professor, so using academic status to disambiguate in this case is not distinct enough. Vycl1994 (talk) 15:41, 27 May 2019 (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.

Janice Griffith

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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. kingboyk (talk) 16:42, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect should be deleted. The target section was deleted over a month ago for BLP reasons [8]. It hasn't been added back and there has been no opposition to the deletion I'm aware of so I assume it's a case of WP:Silence confirming the deletion was proper. This means the article makes no mention of the named person as they are otherwise not significantly relevant to the subject. I checked the history and it seems it was formerly redirecting to Janice (given name) but there's no mention of anyone with a remotely similar name there. So this redirect currently has no logical target. Nil Einne (talk) 15:33, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. In retrospect searching for her name on wikipedia is something I forgot to do. Nil Einne (talk) 12:47, 28 May 2019 (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.

Ma (momma)

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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 04:35, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term, inappropriate use of a disambiguator. Unlike Ma (mama), this redirect has received no use since its creation. signed, Rosguill talk 01:58, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at page statistics, all uses appear to have been on the day that I opened this discussion or after, so I'm fairly certain that most (or all) of those page hits are from us trying to assess the redirect. signed, Rosguill talk 17:03, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 10:33, 27 May 2019 (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.

Organ isue in Kosovo

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'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) 04:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Organ issue" is already an implausible thing to search for, and the misspelling makes this even more of a stretch. Reyk YO! 08:47, 27 May 2019 (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.

Owlery

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'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 Owl. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These are a real thing. This redirect should be a redlink to encourage creation, since I don't think there's a better viable target. —Xezbeth (talk) 08:25, 27 May 2019 (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.

Chamber of the Silent

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'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) 04:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what the intent here was. There is nothing with this name. —Xezbeth (talk) 08:19, 27 May 2019 (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.

Truth potion

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'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) 04:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Too vague, this is a widely used fictional concept that is not unique to one series. Truth potion could redirect to Truth serum, but that article is strictly about the real world version and doesn't cover fiction, so I believe a redlink would be better. —Xezbeth (talk) 07:41, 27 May 2019 (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 mirror of ERISED:Harry Potter

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'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) 04:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Miscapitalised in two instances, incorrect and unnecessary disambiguation, and missing a space. —Xezbeth (talk) 07:13, 27 May 2019 (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.

Dirty sexual intercourse

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'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) 04:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target. Delete Plantdrew (talk) 06:22, 27 May 2019 (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.

Receiving partner

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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. kingboyk (talk) 16:38, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Target article focuses on heterosexual penis in vagina sex, but this title implies a broader concept. Delete or disambiguate. Plantdrew (talk) 06:13, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to the Sexual penetration article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:37, 27 May 2019 (UTC) Additional comment: I'm no longer sure that we sould redirect to the Sexual penetration article. I mean, the Sexual intercourse article does address other sex acts, including in the lead and in different sections. And the Sexual penetration article currently doesn't address any sex act that the Sexual intercourse article does not. It does, however, currently have a focus on sexual assualt, which isn't surprising since Google (both regular Google and Google Books) shows that the term is very much associated with sexual assualt. And since "partner" indicates consent...while sexual assault concerns lack of consent, I'm just not sure about redirecting this "term" to the Sexual penetration article. Probably best to delete it. It doesn't have any traction in the sexual literature. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:25, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is too vague and a redirect may cause confusion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:22, 27 May 2019 (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.

Inserting partner

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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. kingboyk (talk) 16:37, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Target article focuses on heterosexual penis in vagina sex, but this title implies a broader concept. Delete or disambiguate. Plantdrew (talk) 06:12, 27 May 2019 (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.

Twosome

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'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) 04:02, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target. Redirect to threesome with some kind of hatnote, or just delete? Plantdrew (talk) 06:09, 27 May 2019 (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.

Neuken

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'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) 04:02, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently a Dutch term, not mentioned at target. Delete or redirect to Wiktionary Plantdrew (talk) 06:00, 27 May 2019 (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.

Horizontal Polka

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 June 6#Horizontal Polka

Sex diet

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'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) 04:03, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target. Plantdrew (talk) 05:44, 27 May 2019 (UTC) Plantdrew (talk) 05:44, 27 May 2019 (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.

Sleeping together

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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 04:35, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Euphemism that doesn't absolutely imply sexual intercourse. Not linked in article space. Delete. Plantdrew (talk) 05:42, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nominator. —PaleoNeonate – 07:28, 27 May 2019 (UTC) - striked as I found Flyer22 Reborn's comment convincing and am ambivalent.[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.

Grogan Stump

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'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) 04:03, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An extremely minor character who was never mentioned in the books (?). Has a single mention at Grogan which should be removed. Also nominating another that has no mention in Wikipedia. These are characters that are only mentioned in supplementary material and do not have a presence in the main series. —Xezbeth (talk) 05:40, 27 May 2019 (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.

Making babies

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'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 reproduction. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:03, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to human reproduction? Plantdrew (talk) 05:39, 27 May 2019 (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.

Penile sex

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'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) 04:04, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Various sex acts involve penises; anal sex, fellatio, vaginal intercourse, docking (sex). Penile sex is not a common phrase/sex term. Delete or disambiguate. Plantdrew (talk) 05:37, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Penile sex" (although not a common term) usually does refer to penile-vaginal sex (which is also commonly termed sexual intercourse) in the literature. But for broader use, one can redirect it to the Human sexual activity article. Or it might be best to delete it since it's not a common term. On a side note: The Sexual intercourse article does address other sex acts, including in the lead and in different sections. Mainly those other sex acts are anal and oral sex because of what the literature focuses on. What the literature focuses on is also why the article leans more toward penile-vaginal sex, as indicated by the Definitions section and the Prevalence section. But, yes, something like docking is not termed "sexual intercourse" in the literature. And there are a number of non-penetrative sex acts that usually are not, or are never, termed "sexual intercourse." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:37, 27 May 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:25, 28 May 2019 (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.

Dirty sex

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'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) 04:04, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Really? This seems to be a random targetting of a search term to a Wikipedia article. Delete as non-specific. Plantdrew (talk) 05:29, 27 May 2019 (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/2019_May_27&oldid=900607980"