Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 September 6

September 6
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 6, 2013.

Mommy Makeover



 * 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) 17:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * → Plastic surgery (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Variant spelling of Mommy makeover, which was deleted last year per this discussion. Andreas JN 466 04:17, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete, per the previous discussion. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. The lowercase version was not encyclopedic. The uppercase version, when searched for on the web, seems to be just a catch-phrase to get the attention of consumers and give them possible surgical options after they birth a child – options that are designed to improve their health and appearance or that of their wives and friends.  What is unencyclopedic about it as a redirect to an article that can help lead readers to their options? –   Paine Ellsworth   C LIMAX ! 17:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Insulting term that shouldn't go anywhere but the trash; only used by the usual morning shows and plastic surgeons.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 06:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw that rationale in the other delete discussion, so I asked my wife, who has had three children and is a breast cancer survivor, what she thought was insulting about the term, and she found it neutral. I'm curious as to what it is about the term that insults people, and why are you insulted by it?  Or, if you are not personally insulted by it, why do you think anyone else is insulted by it? –   Paine Ellsworth   C LIMAX ! 06:55, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment- "only used by the usual morning shows and plastic surgeons" is not correct. In any case, though I can see that "used by the usual morning shows" is a negative "and plastic surgeons" is a positive since if it is used by the professionals that is an indication of an acceptance of the term in the industry. However, with varying capitalisation, 'Mommy Makeover' is a widely used term in reliable sources across the world eg, , , , , , and you don't get a staider newspaper than The Guardian - . The Whispering Wind (talk) 19:50, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The Guardian implies it includes "electronic toning and 'sexercise'", so it's not limited to plastic surgery. Ideally someone would add something about it to postnatal so it could be redirected there. Siuenti (talk) 21:36, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a thought. Medical aesthetics (which needs quite some editing work) is also another possible target. The Whispering Wind (talk) 23:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Since I cannot be made to understand the nature of any insult made by this otherwise neutral and useful term, I have to go with a keep and either continue to point it to its present target or to something more general and appropriate. –  Paine Ellsworth   C LIMAX ! 00:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:42, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete the target doesn't mention the term. Also I'm dubious that it's the right target. Siuenti (talk) 14:07, 9 September 2013 (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.

Council of Ephesus (Ecumenical council of 431)



 * 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 no consensus. --BDD (talk) 16:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * → Council of Ephesus (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Deletion: Nothing redirects here. I created this name by a move, but my move was reverted (and since then a requested move renamed that). The only link here had been one I made, and since then I changed that link to no longer link to this name, but rather to link to what this redirects to. This name is discussed towards the beginning of Talk:Council_of_Ephesus_(Ecumenical_council_of_431)#Name Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 11:22, 25 August 2013 (UTC) 
 * Keep useful searchbox result (all three councils should have redirects of this form) -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 06:16, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete – #1 It may seem useful, but it is an unlikely search term. Someone might type Council of Ephesus or Ecumenical council of 431, but not both. #2 It is too long to be a useful modifier for disambiguation. Council of Ephesus in 431 gets the point across better. &#8239;Senator2029 ➔ “Talk”</b>&#8239; 01:59, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. What IP 76+ said. Also, with this edit the nom moved the article to this (now redirected) name and used, "Title generally known by and used nearly everywhere in Wikipedia where it's referred to," in the edit summary.  If that is true, then this redirect may be crucially needed and well-used.  True or no, this redirect contains valid search terms. –   Paine Ellsworth   <b style="font-size:x-small; color:blue;">C LIMAX !</b> 17:41, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" />
 * 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.

Torus fracture
<div class="boilerplate mfd" style="background:#FFEEDD; margin-top:0.5em; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #888888;">


 * 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 no consensus. --BDD (talk) 16:54, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * → Greenstick fracture (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

A torus fracture is not a greenstick fracture. The two are different injuries and require different treatment. See, e.g., http://www.wheelessonline.com/ortho/torus_fracture_platic_deformation —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 22:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Looks like you are right from that textbook. 2 case reports on pubmed state "greenstick fracture or torus fracture"  implying that they are similar but not identical. Note also that torus fracture appears to be unique to the upper limb, whilst I know greenstick fractures can occur in other parts of the body. This source is paywalled,  and might be a good source if a new article needs to be written. Otherwise we will need a specialist textbook I imagine.  Lesion  ( talk ) 01:33, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" />
 * Given Special:WhatLinksHere/Torus fracture (one link in mainspace proper) this would appear to be a tad protracted, but nonetheless, a couple of points from me:
 * Buckle fracture appears to be the more commonly used synonym for a torus fracture, yet no page/redirect exists.
 * Greenstick and torus fractures do indeed seem to describe different fracture processes.
 * The solution, I suppose, is to rewrite the greenstick article and create and expand a new torus article using some of the pilfered content. Any takers..? Perhaps the chaps over at the Medicine WikiProject will respond to the RFD notification and ride in to the rescue. <b style="color:#FF0000;">haz</b> (talk), masquerading as 86.26.19.176 (talk) 09:44, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes not a perfect redirect. This could all be dealt with in an article on "fractures in children" and then specific types broke out into their own articles when content gets sufficiently large. However often treated the same Buckle and torus fractures are synonomous   Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:59, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - mentioned in the target and no grounds of WP:RFD are met. If the target article is wrong, as it seems it may be, then that needs fixing as an editorial matter but that is outside the scope of this RFD. If 'torus' is removed from the target then the redirect becomes deletable but not at present. The Whispering Wind (talk) 17:17, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:RFD is patently met. A mere mention in the target does not make it an appropriate target. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 17:47, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Nope, it is not within the scope of #2. Redirects are purely search aids and when, as here, they take the reader to useful information then they are legitimate. The article clearly states that a Torus fracture is a type of Greenstick fracture. If, as you clearly do, think that the information is wrong, or shouldn't be there, that's fine then reach consensus on the article talk page to remove references to 'Torus'. However, as stated above, this is not the purpose of RFD - fix the article first then the redirect will follow but this is not the place to argue that clear statements in an article are incorrect. The article states "There are three basic forms of greenstick fracture. In the first a transverse fracture occurs in the cortex, extends into the midportion of the bone and becomes oriented along the longitudinal axis of the bone without disrupting the opposite cortex. The second form is a torus or buckling fracture, caused by impaction." If this is right then the redirect is fine, if it is not right then gain talk page consensus to remove it. The Whispering Wind (talk) 22:30, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Even if "torus" is struck from the target article this would be a harmless redirect. On the other hand, it might make a great  in the target (#d10). –   Paine Ellsworth   <b style="font-size:x-small; color:blue;">C LIMAX !</b> 03:09, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:25, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" />
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox unsepttrium
<div class="boilerplate mfd" style="background:#FFEEDD; margin-top:0.5em; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #888888;">


 * 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) 16:52, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * → User:Whoop whoop pull up/Infobox unsepttrium (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * → User:Whoop whoop pull up/Infobox untriseptium    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Author moved Infobox template to userspace so this may not be needed anymore. Kumioko (talk) 10:56, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. The elements it is for (137, 173) are not really notable anyway. Double sharp (talk) 11:16, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty 18:25, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. <b style="color:#FFF">Hazard</b> <b style="color:#FFF">SJ</b> 19:33, 6 September 2013 (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.