Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 23[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 23, 2020.

Racial conservatism[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) 00:51, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Phrase does not appear at target Utopes (talk / cont) 23:35, 23 February 2020 (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.

Winning Post 8 2015[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. --BDD (talk) 01:06, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Winning Post 8 did not release in 2015 Utopes (talk / cont) 23:27, 23 February 2020 (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.

Bustrioles[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. --BDD (talk) 01:06, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This term does not seem to exist outside of Urban Dictionary and Wikipedia mirrors. [1] Suggest deleting. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 21:52, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I couldn't find anything either. Narky Blert (talk) 20:46, 24 February 2020 (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.

كس[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. --BDD (talk) 01:05, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No affinity for Arabic. Suggest deleting. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 21:40, 23 February 2020 (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.

Matt Tong[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 1#Matt Tong

466453[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 delete. By Mojo Hand per G7. (non-admin closure) Doug Mehus T·C 18:48, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This was already briefly discussed last year (the RfD closed as "no consensus"). The "keep" argument there was that the domain name 466453.com was/is registered by google. The trouble, not discussed at that RfD, is that this string of digits is ambiguous: it can also refer to an SMS number used by GOOG-411 (related to google), or to a minor planet listed in List of minor planets: 466001–467000 (not related to google). I don't think either of those two dustgrains of content are worth disambiguating for. – Uanfala (talk) 15:35, 23 February 2020 (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.

Sexy women[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. --BDD (talk) 01:05, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to Sexy girls below. I have no retarget to suggest. Note that Sexy men does not exit. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:09, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Women" is not the plural of "girl". Narky Blert (talk) 23:02, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Narky Blert. Do not redirect to Sexy Girl. That dab page lists songs and other works titled "Sexy Girl"; almost certainly not what somebody searching for "sexy women" is looking for. --kingboyk (talk) 20:53, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Psh, fine, but only because of the content currently on this disambiguation page. If this had been a disambiguation page titled Beautiful women, then we could retarget there. Doug Mehus T·C 21:06, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If my aunt had testicles, she would be my uncle. Narky Blert (talk) 23:02, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a riddle? If so, and even if not, I'm lost. Perhaps kingboyk knows what you mean by that. Doug Mehus T·C 23:19, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dmehus: I do indeed know what is meant by that. Let me point you to Wiktionary: "It is fruitless to speculate about counterfactual situations". --kingboyk (talk) 23:24, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingboyk and Narky Blert: Ah, I see, said the blind man! Thank you both. (Speaking of which, I see no encyclopedic value in those phrases whatsoever and, thus, prime candidates for soft redirects). ;-) Doug Mehus T·C 23:32, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dmehus: there is nowhere for it to be soft-redirected to. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:29, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Shhhnotsoloud: I think you might've misunderstand my above comment. I wasn't proposing a soft redirect for the subject redirect. In fact, I was proposing Wiktionary soft redirects for If my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle and I see, said the blind man because I so no encyclopedic value in those phrases, so those soft redirects have now been created and reviewed by a non-involved NPP patrolling editor. Hope that clarifies. Doug Mehus T·C 21:46, 24 February 2020 (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.

Sexy girls[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 Sexy Girl. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 22:09, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A possible change of target is disambiguation page Sexy Girl but no entry there is known in the plural. Note that Sexy boys does not exist (nor do I suggest it does). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:07, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Missing redirect Sexy girl created. Narky Blert (talk) 23:41, 23 February 2020 (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.

Hot Girlz[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 1#Hot Girlz

Pit droid[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 1#Pit droid

Honda Racing Green Peace and Earth car[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 and no consensus, respectively. --BDD (talk) 01:03, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that these two redirects should be deleted. Honda in Formula One has no relation to Greenpeace, it's likely just a joke referring to their 2007 and 2008 car livery. Earth car is just the name of those liveries, it shouldn't redirect to Honda in Formula One as a whole. Carfan568 (talk) 10:31, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Honda Racing Green Peace. They never had any affiliation. Comment the Honda RA107 and Honda RA108 are both referred to as the Earth car in sources. Let me think about this one.
    SSSB (talk) 12:04, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd also delete the first one. As far as the second one, I'm on the fence as well. I should note that The Guardian explicitly calls the RA107 the "Earth Car" in a 2007 story. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:58, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There's a pretty clear consensus for the first redirect, but we don't have much of one for the second.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 03:52, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the first one and keep the second: the Earth Car is often referred to as such and I can see why a redirect exists.
    5225C (talk) 12:31, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both the second as woefully ambiguous per WP:R#D2 and WP:XY (was Keep/Weak keep the first as harmless and potentially useful).Amended. Doug Mehus T·C 18:13, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you expand on how the first redirect is potentially useful Doug, given that Greenpeace had no affiliation with Honda F1 (this is putting things mildly; I should imagine Greenpeace would be quite happy to shut the sport down!) --kingboyk (talk) 20:15, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingboyk: Okay, admittedly, this was an RfD fail on my part; I should've looked into this better. My apologies. You're right; there's no reference to Green Peace having any sort of affiliation with Honda Racing, which I guess would make sense, unless, of course, Honda Racing was using all electric race cars, potentially. As such, I've amended my !vote. ;-) Doug Mehus T·C 20:27, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the first per SSSB; weak keep on the second one as 'earth car' was a commonly-used colloquialism at the time. I'd probably redirect it to Honda RA107 as that was the first of the 'earth cars'. Only weak because of WP:X or Y as cited by Dmehus, which says "redirects that could equally point to multiple targets are usually deleted" (usually, not always) --kingboyk (talk) 20:10, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingboyk: I'm not opposed to keeping Earth car, but I find it hard to believe there's only one possible article on Wikipedia to which this could be referring in that capitalization. If this had been Earth Car, for example, I'd have an easier time saying "keep." Doug Mehus T·C 20:13, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All cars on earth, maybe, but that would be silly; there doesn't appear to be any other legitimate occupant of Earth car or Earth Car at the current time. If somebody by the name of Earth produces a new car next year and unimaginatively names the model "Car" we can worry about that at the time :) --kingboyk (talk) 20:20, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingboyk: You're right, I was sort of thinking as car, so I guess I could potentially support retargeting this redirect to car with rcats {{R to article without mention}}, {{R from adjective}}, {{R for convenience}}, and potentially {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} and {{R with possibilities}}. However, there's also EarthCARE, which has the same beginning eight characters, and Car-Free Days, which refers to "Earth Car Free Day". I'm kind of surprised there's so few possible targets, though. Doug Mehus T·C 20:32, 23 February 2020 (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.

Anti-labor[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 1#Anti-labor

Rcat shell[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. --BDD (talk) 00:59, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

cross-namespace redirect created by now blocked sockmaster. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 00:35, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as simply unused; it serves no purpose. Its only inlinks are related to this RfD and the indefinitely blocked creator's user talk page. Doug Mehus T·C 02:54, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as implausible. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:55, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unnecessary cross-domain redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:11, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; unused CNR's are harmful. J947 (c), at 20:38, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@J947: I was thinking the same thing (probably MJL was, too, potentially). If we have {{rcat shell}} and redirect Rcat shell, which takes precedence when transcluding? That is, if we had Rcat shell pointing to one template and {{rcat shell}} pointing to another, what would happen in that scenario? Which gets transcluded? @Pppery:? Doug Mehus T·C 20:44, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The template I believe. You would have to precede with a colon in order to transclude the article — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:05, 27 February 2020 (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/2020_February_23&oldid=943632824"