Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 21

September 21
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 21, 2015.

Town Square
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 October 1%23Town Square

Ijime



 * 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) 13:48, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Ijime → Bullying (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ijime&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

WP:FORRED; bullying is not a concept solely exclusive to Japanese-speaking cultures. Steel1943 (talk) 19:51, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as Steely says. but only because he made me say that Si Trew (talk) 22:38, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NOTDIC Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary. General topic with no particular affinity for Japanese. (Indeed, Elon Musk might say it has more affinity for South Africa) -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:FORRED as a redirect from an unrelated foreign language. --Rubbish computer 15:40, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Closest target that I got was Ijime, Dame, Zettai but this is a partial title match at best. -- Lenticel ( talk ) 00:22, 24 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.

Cussing people



 * 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) 13:48, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Cussing people → Bullying (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cussing_people&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

"Cussing people" is not exclusive to "bullying". People may cuss for several various other reasons. Steel1943 (talk) 19:41, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete this, as WP:RFD confusing. Would "cussing people" be the people doing the cussing, or as a conjugation of a phrasal verb "to cuss (people)"? WP:NOTDIC. -> Profanity, where it is in the WP:FIRSTSENTENCE but not mentioned otherwise. (Which is effing stupid.) Si Trew (talk) 22:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Cussing leads to Profanity ; is this is to mean people who cuss, or cussing out at people? In either case we could just redirect it to profanity -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:29, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm but we have been kinda tidying up the many Rs to profanity as rather vague so I am not sure we should add one. WP:NOTCENSORED, but this seems a bit of a long stretch. Si Trew (talk) 08:10, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per Si Trew. --Rubbish computer 15:44, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - There's no proper target for this search term in the first place. I agree. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:24, 23 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.

Debation



 * 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) 13:47, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Debation → Debate (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Debation&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Delete as a novel and obscure synonym of the article name. Karl Dickman talk 07:47, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per page view stats. Rubbish computer 07:59, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: I am not sure it is that obscure, because the schoolboy slang is that a "mass debation" means masturbation, but it's not mentioned at that target. WP:NOTENGLISH really though, and WP:NOTDIC. Si Trew (talk) 08:04, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * My first hit for "mass debation" on Gsearch gave me this link. Quite funny. Si Trew (talk) 08:11, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep this seems like a very plausible mistake for non-native speakers to make, and the stats show it is used. Thryduulf (talk) 15:34, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I am sure not just "non-native speakers" either, but I couldn't really get past the "masturbation" hits to find any genuine use of it. Wiktionary has an entry for this word, but just goes to "Debating", which is sending us around in circles ( redirects to Debate also). Perhaps sex sites are more prevalent in my morning (UTC+2) than in my evening, I dunno. Si Trew (talk) 18:04, 14 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. I just asked my missus, who is about five hundred miles away from me at the moment in another EU country, but as one always does with trying to tease things out of non-native speakers, she had not heard of the word. Her English is extremely good having lived in England for about seven years (neither of us lives in England now), and a bit too good, without being at all patronising (or rather to be deliberately patronising) you have to ask someone whose English is not so good. But all the evidence seems to point that "Debation" is not something used to mean "Debating" or "Debate". That is a vox pop of one person (A voce populus, then), of course, so others may have said otherwise, best I could do. I can't see any evidence of this being used (and I don't mean just Wikipedia but on any search I have managed) and I think we are sending our readership around in circles if we have it. Si Trew (talk) 19:08, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep as a valid and useful R from wrong name. Steel1943  (talk) 19:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * ...But then again, maybe it's a real word: debation exists... Steel1943  (talk) 19:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete - This isn't helpful as the primary meaning of the term relates to masturbating, and-- even then-- it's incomplete. I suppose I'm okay with a redirect to masturbation, I guess, but even then I'd rather this text just remain red. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. It just occurred to me overnight to think of checking turbation (perhaps the act of a turbo), urbation (as some kind of back formation of urbanisation), destation (that might mean to disembark or alight but apparently doesn't), deration (to remove something from a ration), devation as a misspelling (or typo) for deviation, and other near-homonyms, but I can't find any in blue that would act as a pattern for this. But then whoever thought English was logical? Si Trew (talk) 11:52, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:43, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - it shows up in Wiktionary but the entry has no references; doesn't show up in credible dictionaries. Google search shows confusion between debate and deliberation, with a few other not-quite-matches thrown in for flavour. I don't find the stats compelling: except for a one-day spike in August this is getting bot noise levels of activity. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:53, 21 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.

Technical tap



 * 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 soft redirect. --BDD (talk) 13:45, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Technical tap → Percussive maintenance (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Technical_tap&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]
 * Technical Tap → Percussive maintenance (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Technical_Tap&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Delete. This seems excessively going around the houses to get to Wiktionary at the target, I started, and withdrew, the discussion here about Birmingham screwdriver but at least that is only one jump away, these are three jumps away. Will check history etc after listing. Si Trew (talk) 05:57, 13 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Stats for both are well above noise level (about three a day on average but a steady flow), actually slowing now but high enough not to be bot noise). My trouble with these is that the target itself is a soft redirect to Wiktionary, so this seems excessively going round the houses, and these would be better of deleted. WP:SURPRISE, WP:RFD confusion. Si Trew (talk) 06:06, 13 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - Not really a helpful redirect, it seems CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:29, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete per Si Trew. Rubbish computer 00:10, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Soft redirect to technical tap. It's not useful to redirect to a wiktionary redirect rather than soft redirecting to the definition directly, and it's a double redirect anyway. I also considered tap dance technique but it's a stretch. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:49, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Soft redirect per Ivanvector. -- Tavix ( talk ) 16:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:43, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Soft retarget per Ivanvector. --Rubbish computer 15:41, 22 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.

Ovaloid



 * 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 Oval. --BDD (talk) 13:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Ovaloid → Ellipsoid (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ovaloid&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Ovoid also redirects to oval. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 03:17, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Could you explain further? What action are you proposing? -- Tavix ( talk ) 04:55, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I presume nom wants to propose retarget to Oval, following Ovoid (a 3D oval, as defined at target)?  野狼院ひさし  u/t/c 10:50, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Retargtet to Easter Egg . It's you're easter diet, ovoid chocolate. (Ducks the slap.) Si Trew (talk) 14:12, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment perhaps more seriously it could go to overload. Si Trew (talk) 14:18, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Support: a dictionary mentions ovaloid as meaning "resembling an oval", rather than something three-dimensional. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:33, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Retarget - It seems that the most reasonable thing for me is for "ovaloid" to go to "oval" directly. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 18:04, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Retarget to oval as a plausible synonym. Rubbish computer 22:07, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 'Keep. As far as I am aware, at least in British mathematical usage, an ovoid is a specific shape, essentially an ellipse, and an ovaloid is an ellipsoid. An oval (egg-shaped thing) is distinguished, I think, in that it has symmetry only in two of three axes, which is why the world is split into little-endians and big-endians (both of which redirect to endianness). Deliberately I have not looked any fof these links up yet, just what I would have thought off the top of my somewhat ovoid bonce. Si Trew (talk) 03:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I looked em I am right and you are wrong, but I would like actually the two R's and  to be  refined as R to section. I shall do this WP:BOLDly, and check for other variants of punctuation, but feel free to revert or to kinda spot my mistakes if I don't do so perfecttly (I think it should go more closely to Gulliver's Travels somehow but have not quite worked out how yet, as most people only read it as a children's story, not in its full version). Si Trew (talk) 04:42, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. Actually I need other's advice before I even start, since both terms are also mentioned at Gulliver's Travels but in a somewhat roundabout way. Swift would turn in his grave, eh! I think it is best just to refine them to their targets but mark as R to section, but perhaps it might be better to completely retarget them to Gulliver's Travels. I don't want to make a drama out of a crisis by listing these, but I should prefer y'alls opinions. I think also this gives WP:UNDUE weight to their use in computer architecture instead of their use in the book, but probably I would be in a minority there. Si Trew (talk) 04:45, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:42, 21 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.

Murder of workers in labor disputes in the United States



 * 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 Speedily closed. POV dispute beyond RfD's juridiction, no good comes of it spilling here. When it settles down whatever remnants of redirects can be discussed here on their own merits. (non-admin closure) by Si Trew (talk) 14:59, 21 September 2015 (UTC)}}


 * Murder of workers in labor disputes in the United States → Violent labor disputes in the United States (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Murder_of_workers_in_labor_disputes_in_the_United_States&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Delete blatantly POV/OR article name (Murder of workers in labor disputes in the United States) which is now a redirect to Violent labor disputes in the United States, which admittedly may not be the ideal name but it'll do for the nonce. Wikipedia can't be used as agitprop. Quis separabit? 13:18, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy close pending resolution of the POV battle occurring at Talk:Violent labor disputes in the United States. This page is directly affected; we can do nothing here that overrides that discussion. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:34, 21 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.

Public Square
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 29%23Public Square

Genocide in Syria
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 October 4%23Genocide in Syria