Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 15

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 dabify. --BDD (talk) 14:19, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Drat → Minced oath  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect is an example of a minced oath, but the redirect is not identified by subject at the target article. For this reason, the helpfulness of this redirect is questionable since the subject of the redirect isn't identified by subject at the target. Unless a good retargeting option can be found for this redirect, I say either soft retarget to Wiktionary (if there is a corresponding entry) or delete. Steel1943 (talk) 05:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to damnation, since that is where damn leads to -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 06:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per 70. Rubbish computer 10:51, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not discussed at Damnation#As profanity nor at minced oath, and quite possibly not a minced oath of "damn" at all; wikt:drat says it comes from "God rot", and "God rot" is apparently distinct from "God damn". 58.176.246.42 (talk) 12:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Look up drat in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

• Delete, WP:NOTDIC. It isn't actually from "damnation" anyway, but from "God rot". Si Trew (talk) 21:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate. I found a few hits, so I drafted a dab under the redirect. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:14, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguation is not helpful if there is a clear primary topic of the term, which would be the minced oath. bd2412 T 22:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

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'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 Damnation#As profanity and delete, respectively. --BDD (talk) 14:17, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Danged → Minced oath  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Danging → Minced oath  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

These redirects are examples of minced oaths, but the redirects are not identified by subject at the target article. For this reason, the helpfulness of these redirects is questionable since the subject of the redirects is only somewhat identified, but essentially as a WP:DICDEF. Unless good retargeting options can be found for these redirects, I say either soft retarget to Wiktionary (if there is a corresponding entry) or delete. Steel1943 (talk) 05:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to damnation since that is where damn leads to -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 06:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per 70. Rubbish computer 10:52, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not at target.WP:RFD#D2 confusing. We don't have Pesky meddling kids, for example. Si Trew (talk) 15:21, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually we do but Pesky → Johnny Pesky, to my surprise and delight. Si Trew (talk) 15:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget both to Damnation#As_profanity; "dang" is discussed there as a minced oath alternative. Neelix (talk) 16:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as vague. Dang is discussed at the proposed retarget, but other forms of the word are not and I'm not sure that's what people would be looking for. My search would lead me to assume the primary usage "danging" to be a misspelling/misuse of "dangling". -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:41, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both as vague. I'm also okay with a Weak Retarget to Danger for "Danged" --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:46, 22 September 2015 (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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 15:28, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 'sfoot → Minced oath  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect is an example of a minced oath, but the redirect is somewhat identified by subject at the target article, but as a bit of a dictionary definition for what the contraction represents. For this reason, the helpfulness of this redirect is questionable since the subject of the redirect isn't identified by subject at the target. Unless a good retargeting option can be found for this redirect, I say either soft retarget to Wiktionary (if there is a corresponding entry) or delete. Steel1943 (talk) 05:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Soft redirect to Wiktionary as there is an entry there. Rubbish computer 10:53, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, WP:TITLE, we don't start titles with apos. or maybe retarget to afoot. 'tis , many any a slip twix a carp and a leek, as Shakespeare said somewhere (or am I msistaken;). Si Trew (talk) 15:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. All these with the apos at the front worry me a little, it is sometimes used in lingustics to indicate a glottal stop but it is WP:NOTENGLISH. (and having a southern English accent I often swallow My T's with a glottal stop). Si Trew (talk) 21:14, 4 September 2015 (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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 15:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Runningback U → Alabama_Crimson_Tide_football  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Running Back U → Alabama_Crimson_Tide_football  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. While both redirects have existed for several years, each has served during that time as nothing more than a seesaw battleground wherein fans of one or another college football team direct the link to their favorite. Mostly the targets alternate between Auburn and Alabama, but have included USC and Miami (and - I don't get this - Shakira and Alexis Amore). The concept of "Running back U" appears from time to time in college football articles but typically just to discuss which of some 10 or so schools can lay claim to the nickname. It has no recognized association with any one (or five) schools such that a redirect is appropriate. JohnInDC (talk) 13:51, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, per WP:XY and per WP:NOTFANSITE. WP:SALT due to lengthy revert-war history; it's likely to be recreated. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Too common a phrase to be meaningfully redirected to any particular team or college. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:30, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per Ivanvector shoy (reactions) 14:51, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt per Ivanvector. Rubbish computer 15:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete but allow for recreation if it will be formatted like Quarterback U-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 18:12, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Unlike Linebacker U (a redirect to Penn State), the nickname is not associated with a single program to have a redirect to any one university be appropriate. Cbl62 (talk) 20:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Do not salt. The model here is Quarterback U with context in the summary and then team sections with citations. I would stub this out, but not under the threat of salting. UW Dawgs (talk) 21:43, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Agreed with UCO2009bluejay and UW Dawgs. What was done with Quarterback U is the model that should be followed here. Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:13, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:REDLINK so that someone can recreate an article, per UCO2009bluejay. Revised my !vote. Personally I would like to see this salted and then an article drafted and reviewed before allowing it to be moved over the deleted title, but we don't typically do that here and it's unnecessarily WP:BITEy. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:42, 19 September 2015 (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'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 Lien. [Additional comments.] –Davey2010^Talk 23:21, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Proprietary lien → Maritime lien  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

A lien is a right to keep someone else’s property. Non-maritime liens can therefore be referred to as “proprietary liens”. Retarget to Lien. Gorobay (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - while what Gorobay said is true, the phrase "proprietary lien" seems to have a specific meaning under admiralty law, rather than just a lien which is proprietary. It is explained (though over my head) at the current target, and there are several book references which agree. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 13:53, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought it might be something like that; I am glad I didn’t retarget boldly. Still, the current target only mentions “proprietary lien” once, in a way which does not seem different from the non-maritime sense. The formatting of the original version implies that It is a proprietary lien which interest is about the “res” (property) means that a maritime lien is a kind of proprietary lien. If I am wrong, the article could be clearer, perhaps with references from those books you found. Gorobay (talk) 16:07, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, this is well outside my area of expertise. I'll post a note at WP:LAW and see if we can get some clarity in the article. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:36, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Ivanvector. Rubbish computer 15:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Lien. The "property lien" mentioned in the Maritime Lien article is functionally equivalent to any other lien, which by definition attaches to property. In any case, the primary topic commonly associated with liens on property usually involves non-maritime liens. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:36, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• To clarify my earlier remarks, a maritime lien is a type of property lien. Specifically, a maritime lien is a lien against a boat for non-payment of goods or services (see this source). You can have liens against all kinds of property, and it would be very misleading to direct a search for "property liens" to a page about maritime liens. That would be like linking the article for hats to the article about party hats. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per nom and Notecardforfree. I can see how that would be the case. The maritime lien article should be updated for clarity. In particular, "proprietary lien" should not be bolded in the lede. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:18, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per nom, Notecardforfree, and Ivanvector. We should not be giving partially correct information. A proprietary lien is not limited to a maritime lien, and we should not give that impression. GregJackP Boomer! 17:50, 19 September 2015 (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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 15:25, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Moneygami → Origami  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target article. Apparently, the subject of this redirect pertains to folding paper money into various shapes. Steel1943 (talk) 00:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:REDLINK. Apparently there are books dedicated to this hobby according to Google Books. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:24, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The concept of making various things out of paper money appears to be at least partly notable by itself, related to but somewhat separate from traditional origami. I agree. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:12, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above points. Rubbish computer 12:47, 15 September 2015 (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.