Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 August 13

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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:59, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Harpreet Singh (weightlifter) → Harpreet Singh  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Redirects to a list of people who are not weightlifters Certes (talk) 17:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. bd2412 T 03:21, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 RiceTec. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:48, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Texmati → Basmati  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Just created this redirect. But now, I'm not sure if it should remain as is or be retargeted to RiceTec as a {{R from product}}. My concern is that there is currently a limited amount of information about the subject of the redirect, so thus I am not sure if the redirect should target what it is a variation of (Basmati) or if it should target the company that makes it as it may be a trademark (RiceTec). Steel1943 (talk) 16:33, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment would this be similar to the discussion regarding Tylenol? Or is Texmati more strongly tied to the brand than its "active ingredient"? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:01, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to RiceTec. More relevant information there, and I assume this is some sort of proprietary strain. --BDD (talk) 20:58, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 withdrawn. As suggested, I'm going ahead and implementing the proposed changes as uncontroversial. (non-admin closure) – Uanfala 16:42, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Fucking → Fuck (disambiguation)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Fucking (disambiguation) → Fuck (disambiguation)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

An RfD discussion in 2007 decided that this should redirect to Fuck (disambiguation), but with this arrangement we're making it more difficult for readers to find what they're looking for. Only three of the entries at the current target are any relevant and they're thinly spread out so that a user looking for "Fucking" will have to sift through a lot of noise to get what they need. I propose that "Fucking" have its separate disambiguation page listing the expletive (treated within Fuck), possibly a lexical-meaning link to Sexual intercourse, but definitely links to the the two Austrian villages (Fucking, Austria and Fugging, formerly known as "Fucking"), plus see also entries for Fuxing and Fuqing.

Now, a separate question is whether there is a primary topic for this term, and hence whether this separate dab page should be at Fucking or at Fucking (disambiguation). There's no doubt that in the English language, the expletive is undoubtedly the primary meaning of the word, so if wikipedia were a dictionary Fucking would surely redirect to Fuck. But it's not a dictionary, and I'm not sure the expletive is the primary encyclopedic topic of the term. Although I don't have strong opinions either way, I feel it's best for the new dab page to be at the primary tile Fucking. – Uanfala 22:57, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I doing F---ing care. Be bold and fix it :) Legacypac (talk) 16:02, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, people have been fixing this time and again, only to be reverted because of that RfD from ten years ago. But then these "fixes" consisted in the creation of the old two-entry dab page, and that's different from what I'm proposing. Indeed, it's probably uncontroversial, so if no-one objects in a day, I'll withdraw this as a nomination and go ahead with being bold. – Uanfala 16:56, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:47, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Mickey Mouse Slim → Mickey Mouse (TV series)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Doesn't seem to be an alternative name for its target. All results I get on third-party engines for "Mickey Mouse Slim" are for school supplies with no connection to the target of this redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 23:44, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. No such product branding called Mickey Mouse Slim. The word "slim" is used in the context of products that are slim like slim jeans, slim wallet, slim bottle, slim sippy cups [1] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:26, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep If you look at the redesigned characters in these shorts compared to the original classic shorts even the house of Mouse/Mickey Mouse Works shorts, you will notice how much slimmer each of them look. If I recall correctly it was mentioned when the show was annonced that the characters would be redesigned. DoctorHver (talk) 22:30, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Not disputing DoctorHver's assertion, but the redirect is an unlikely search term unless people are actually calling it that. The same rationale might apply to terms like Mickey Mouse Thin or Mickey Mouse Lithe. --BDD (talk) 20:51, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:47, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• TOON DISNEY STUDIO → DisneyToon Studios  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not seeing how this is a likely search term for its target. In addition, this is the only redirect targeting its target that has the words "toon" and "Disney" in that order. Steel1943 (talk) 23:41, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for all-caps. It could redirect to Toon Disney but other than the infobox mentioning a headquarters, it doesn't mention what studios were designated for Toon Disney work. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:31, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep At very least the reversed orders of names. Since there is some misunderstanding going on what the actual name is of this sub-division of Disney. I don't know why its all CAPS though. DoctorHver (talk) 22:34, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. All caps or the wrong order alone are plausible enough, but not together (cf. WP:RTYPO). --BDD (talk) 20:50, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 Burin (lithic flake). (non-admin closure) feminist 12:16, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Ordinary burin → Burin  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unnecessary redirect Pariah24 (talk) 22:05, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• That's a tricky case. Burin (lithic flake) and Burin (engraving) were only recently split into separate articles, and there does seem to be some blurry overlap at the boundary between the two topics. The results of a google books search for "ordinary burin" seem to all be about the stone tool, and one source in particular [2] uses the phrase in a way that makes it apparent it's a specific term of its own (rather than merely a phrase for a burin that happens to be ordinary). In the same text, "ordinary burin" is equated with Burin en-bec-de-flute (which currently redirects to the engraving tool), so it seems the two redirects should point to the same place. – Uanfala 22:36, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So are you recommended it go to (engraving) then? Are there any cases where it would need to go to the flake? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:33, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was simply observing, and I don't think the engraving use corresponds to what I saw in my brief search. I'm deferring to the experts here, and I see we've already had a relevant opinion just below. – Uanfala 13:53, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but retarget to Burin (lithic flake). It's a technical term for a specific type of burin, where "the burin face is backed against another burin face on the opposite side of the blade or flake" [3]. – Joe (talk) 00:04, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Burin (lithic flake). I thought the matter was settled after Joe Roe's input. – Uanfala 11:52, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.