Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 4

September 4
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 4, 2015.

Charles.Marvin Green



 * 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 deleted WP:G7 by . (non-admin closure) -- Tavix ( talk ) 00:15, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Charles.Marvin Green → Angry Grandpa (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charles.Marvin_Green&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Has period in article title by mistake Checkingfax (talk) 19:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete, WP:G7. Tagged. Steel1943  (talk) 20:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Periods are very unlikely typos. Steel1943  (talk) 20:55, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep as likely typo. is to same target. Si Trew (talk) 20:51, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - Unlikely typo. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 20:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as implausible typo, although it is probably already going to be deleted. Rubbish computer 22:39, 4 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.

Hockey on the ice
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 16%23Hockey on the ice

Israeli Secret Intelligence Service



 * 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 deleted WP:G3 by . (non-admin closure) -- Tavix ( talk ) 00:15, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Israeli Secret Intelligence Service → Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israeli_Secret_Intelligence_Service&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Inappropriate redirect with no better target. Based on a WP:FRINGE conspiracy theory about the supposed US/Israeli origins of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The ISIS article doesn't mention it. A CSD seems sensible, but I can't determine a criterion that fits. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 18:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Mossad, to which redirects. Si Trew (talk) 19:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * On what basis are you proposing that? What relevance is the MOSSAD redirect? Are you basing that on your own interpretation of the combination of words? This is not another name for Mossad. It's what someone said the acronym ISIS "really" stands for, more or less. Here's a metaphor, at the risk of further confusing things :) - It's like if someone said "the CIA really stands for 'Canadians in America'" because of some conspiracy theory about the CIA allowing some kind of illicit Canadian immigration... and then Wikipedia actually redirected Canadians in America to Central Intelligence Agency without the latter even mentioning the non-notable theory. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 20:00, 4 September 2015 (UÉÉ
 * on the basis of WP:COMMONNAME. Like the nick, btw, and reminds me to shove in some rhododendrons ready for nexst Spring. Si Trew (talk) 20:46, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The WP:COMMONNAME for Mossad is "Mossad". It sounds like you're interpreting "common name" as "any way it might be referred to in conversation" (i.e. the combination of words would most likely mean Mossad, so why not link it there). That's not how it works, or we could also create and redirect that intelligence agency over in Israel and Israel's Mossad agency for intelligence gathering and other such business. There has to be a reason to have a particular redirect, and you haven't provided one. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 20:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not going to continue this conversation farther. Wwe had lots about ISIS and ISIL and various others, and you are just being WP:BADFAITH here, paently the Israeli Secret Intelligent Service should redirect to the Israeli Secret Intelligent Service, not to the Islamaic State of Iraq and the Levant. is a redirect to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant for example, but I take Occam's Razor and need not endlessly multiply examples. Si Trew (talk) 20:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Look at this (randomly chosen from the first page of ghits). That is the basis for the creation of this redirect. It's not another name for Mossad. It's an obscure conspiracy theory about the Islamic State's origins. Someone looking for that title would be looking for [an incorrect version of] the Islamic State article, not Mossad. Bad faith has nothing to do with it (and I don't know how to take a statement that I'm "being WP:BADFAITH" -- assuming? acting in?); you've simply provided poor justification for your argument beyond what would also justify redirecting Israel's Agency Kind of Like the CIA or MI5 (i.e. something someone might possibly type in when they're looking for Mossad). Perhaps I'm having trouble understanding what you're saying (e.g. I don't know what "[We] had lots about ISIS and ISIL and various others" means) or perhaps I'm mistaken in my understanding of what constitutes an appropriate title/redirect. It's entirely possible. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 21:17, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Speedy 'Delete per G-3 and WP:PROFRINGE. This is a rather naked attempt to use the project for the promotion of a fringe, and false, conspiracy theory. It serves no legitimate purpose and should be removed immediately. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, I should've thought of G3. It looks like just deleted it as such, so this thread can probably be closed. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 22:30, 4 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.


 * Comment. Sorry. I wanted to say explicitly that User:Rhododendrites was not in bad faith nor did I take it that way, but I could see it may seem so. I should have expressed myself more clearly in saying so, and I have apologised to Rhodes on that user's talk page, but when someone is wrong, one should own up to it, and I was wrong: as I said at the user's talk page, I should prefer to make a more public apology, and thus I do here. Si Trew (talk) 09:05, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Cochrane Database Syst Rev



 * 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 on the database redirects; they will remain as they are. Keep the library redirects. --BDD (talk) 13:45, 16 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Cochrane collaboration
 * Cochrane Database Syst Rev → Cochrane Collaboration (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cochrane_Database_Syst_Rev&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]


 * Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. → Cochrane Collaboration (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cochrane_Database_Syst._Rev.&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]


 * Cochrane Database Systematic Reviews → Cochrane Collaboration (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cochrane_Database_Systematic_Reviews&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]


 * Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews → Cochrane Collaboration (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cochrane_Database_of_Systematic_Reviews&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]


 * Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Online) → Cochrane Collaboration (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cochrane_Database_of_Systematic_Reviews_(Online)&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]
 * Cochrane Database of systematic reviews → Cochrane Collaboration (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cochrane_Database_of_systematic_reviews&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]
 * Cochrane Review → Cochrane Collaboration (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cochrane_Review&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]


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


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


 * Cochrane database of systematic reviews → Cochrane Collaboration (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cochrane_database_of_systematic_reviews&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]


 * <span id="Cochrane database of systematic reviews (online)">Cochrane database of systematic reviews (online) → Cochrane Collaboration (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cochrane_database_of_systematic_reviews_(online)&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]


 * The Cochrane database of systematic reviews → Cochrane Collaboration (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Cochrane_database_of_systematic_reviews&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]


 * <span id="Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online)">Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) → Cochrane Collaboration (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cochrane_database_of_systematic_reviews_(Online)&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]


 * The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews → Cochrane Collaboration (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Cochrane_Database_of_Systematic_Reviews&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]


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


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


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

I was doing some cleanup for WP:JCW earlier, and I started updating some of these redirects given some were pointing to the Cochrane Collaboration, and others to the Library. I updated most of them to point to the collaboration, but I have a nagging doubt that what I did may not be the best solution possible, so I'm starting this RFD so we can decide what's the best course of action from here on.

The best solution, IMO, would be to have a specific article on the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and redirect the first set of links to that target. Failing that, however, we need to decide if it's best to point them to Cochrane Library or Cochrane Collaboration. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Cochrane collaboration is better to direct it towards...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Almost all of the content in "Cochrane Collaboration" is about the database of reviews. There are a handful of mentions about the Library. I don't really see any advantage in creating a new article about the database, or changing the article's name. The current situation looks fine. <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 10:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Create article for Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Retarget the rest to Cochrane collaboration, as this seems a more suitable target. Rubbish computer 17:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think creating a CDSR article would be a good idea, and that redirecting all the redirects listed under the "Cochrane collaboration" section on this page to the CDSR page would be a good idea as well. As for the Cochrane Library redirects, they should be kept the way they are, IMO. Everymorning (talk) 22:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment If there's no CDSR article by the end of this debate, tag the CDSR redirects with abbreviations in them as R avoided double redirect, which will make it easier to find them if someone eventually does create a CDSR article (e.g. they'll show up in Special:WhatLinksHere). 58.176.246.42 (talk) 03:32, 6 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.

<span id="市区重建局">市区重建局
<div class="boilerplate rfd vfd xfd-closed" 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. I discounted arguments based on FORRED, since there's obviously a connection between the target articles and Chinese languages. There's some feeling that the hatnotes currently on each of the targets are sufficient to allay confusion. --BDD (talk) 13:56, 16 September 2015 (UTC)


 * <span id="市区重建局">市区重建局 → Urban Redevelopment Authority (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%E5%B8%82%E5%8C%BA%E9%87%8D%E5%BB%BA%E5%B1%80&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]
 * <span id="市區重建局">市區重建局 → Urban Renewal Authority (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%E5%B8%82%E5%8D%80%E9%87%8D%E5%BB%BA%E5%B1%80&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

These ambiguous Chinese-language (one simplified, one traditional) redirects point to two organisations with the same Chinese name but different English names. I suggest that we delete both due to the potential of confusion. Both Hong Kong and Singapore recognise traditional and simplified Chinese characters (although HK defaults to traditional, SG to simplified) so I'd argue that WP:FORRED applies equally to both possible targets. Deryck C. 14:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd accept disambiguation as an alternative. Deryck C. 12:25, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: This is probably headed towards disambiguation, but questions remain. Which one would be the dab, for one?
 * Comment (as creator) I have considered this ambiguity at creation, so I also made sure there are headnotes linking between both articles (diffs: ). I have no objection to any suggestion to better solve this bold introduction of confusion, including deletion or perhaps a Category:Disambiguation pages with Chinese character titles.  野狼院ひさし  <small style="font-size:85%;">u/t/c 14:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Rubbish computer 17:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think if both places defaulted to the same scripts, a disambiguation would be the best choice, but from the references I've seen, the current way this is set up looks to be a good solution. The hatnotes should clear up confusion so I don't see the benefit of deletion here. -- Tavix ( talk ) 17:51, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, if you keep it the way it is, the hatnotes take care of everything and you don't need to answer those questions. -- Tavix ( talk ) 17:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[[ i


 * Delete per WP:FORRED and WP:NOTDIC and WP:USEENGLISH. Not Chinese anyway but Japanese. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and mores is not a translation dictionary.ja:市区重建 is a DAB or "did you mean" page,  ja:市區重建局 is red,.ja:市区重建 is a DAB or "did you mean" page,  cz:市區重建局 and cz:市区重建 are red. ja:市區重建局 has no interwdata links to either. These are spurious.,I think, but I call on User:Lenticel as the expert here with these. Si Trew (talk) 18:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment the ISO 639-1 code for Chinese is zh. (cz is for Czech). zh:市區重建局 exists and is about the Hong Kong URA. zh:市區重建局 (新加坡) is for the Singapore URA. (Chinese Wikipedia does not allow simplified and traditional titles to go to different places.) 58.176.246.42 (talk) 00:57, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per Si Trew. — Godsy (TALK<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;"> CONT ) 00:50, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per Tavix. Each version is sufficiently relevant to its target (and more relevant than it is to the other target), the name is mentioned at the target, and any residual confusion is already handled with hatnotes. Per WP:TWODABS, I don't think disambiguation is necessary. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 00:57, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete both per WP:FORRED. If I were using the Chinese Wikipedia, I would expect to have to search for the Chinese name of the subject I was interested in, even if it were a U.S. Government agency. I don't see why a person using the English Wikipedia shouldn't expect to search for a subject by its English name. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 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.

<span id="Lists of endangered languages/UNESCO definitions">Lists of endangered languages/UNESCO definitions
<div class="boilerplate rfd vfd xfd-closed" 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 move to UNESCO definitions of endangered languages, without leaving a redirect. --BDD (talk) 17:50, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


 * <span id="Lists of endangered languages/UNESCO definitions">Lists of endangered languages/UNESCO definitions → Lists of endangered languages (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lists_of_endangered_languages/UNESCO_definitions&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Article created entirely in good faith, perhaps under the impression that the slash would make it a sub-page. Ran afoul of copyright problems, unused, redirected. However, as it stands it's a highly improbable redirect, so should perhaps now be deleted. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep as the article opens with "The following lists of endangered languages are mainly based on the definitions used by UNESCO": seems a plausible search term. Rubbish computer 10:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep - While these kinds of redirects do mean that you have to be typing, have the text you need, but then keep on typing... I still see this as being reasonably helpful even if it's relatively improbable that someone would type it out. I can imagine someone searching this or writing this, in good faith, even if it's not likely. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment. The only reason this pseudo-subpage is still around is the discussion that started up on its talk page. The discussion is currently in limbo, as we are apparently still waiting to hear back from UNESCO on more precise licensing terms on some of their content (this needs to be followed up on). The talk page content will either have to be moved somewhere or linked to from a relevant talk page (Talk:Lists of endangered languages) if the redirect itself is deleted. Note, BTW, that the licensing issues discussed at Talk:Lists of endangered languages/UNESCO definitions include not just the definitions but indeed the entire contents of the list articles linked to from Lists of endangered languages. - dcljr (talk) 13:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete edit history containing copyright violations, which is also an improbable redirect, and falls afoul of WP:SUBPAGE as that was how it was built. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 04:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. Actually, we technically still don't know if any copyright violations have occurred, since UNESCO seems to have been trying to give their permission to reproduce that content. The specific license they will agree to has yet to be determined. Only then will we know whether "copyright violations" is one of the reasons this page should be deleted. - dcljr (talk) 13:39, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. In case my last comment has introduced any confusion, my position is this: so long as Talk:Lists of endangered languages/UNESCO definitions is not deleted along with Lists of endangered languages/UNESCO definitions before the licensing issue is resolved, I don't care what happens to Lists of endangered languages/UNESCO definitions. - dcljr (talk) 14:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * is quite right, the talk page should not be deleted. I propose as an alternative to deletion a move to, say, UNESCO definitions of endangered languages, which would be an entirely plausible search term. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:52, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete, though I note that Endangered language sowan not refer to it. Probably far too precious for cunning linguists. Si Trew (talk) 18:21, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. The third paragraph of Endangered language (already marked with ) is a suitable target for the new redirect suggested by Justlettersandnumbers, if that's desired. (Currently, pages such as List of endangered languages in China, which used to contain the text of the definitions, now link to Endangered language instead.)
 * I see the following possible solutions:
 * Retarget Lists of endangered languages/UNESCO definitions to point to Endangered language instead, and leave everything else (talk page, edit history of redirect) as-is.
 * Delete Lists of endangered languages/UNESCO definitions but leave Talk:Lists of endangered languages/UNESCO definitions in place.
 * Delete Lists of endangered languages/UNESCO definitions (to obliterate its history) and then recreate it as a redirect to Endangered language instead (leaving the talk page in place).
 * Move Talk:Lists of endangered languages/UNESCO definitions (talk page only) to Talk:UNESCO definitions of endangered languages, leaving a redirect, and then delete Lists of endangered languages/UNESCO definitions, keeping UNESCO definitions of endangered languages a redlink.
 * Move Talk:Lists of endangered languages/UNESCO definitions (talk page only) to Talk:UNESCO definitions of endangered languages, leaving a redirect, delete Lists of endangered languages/UNESCO definitions, and then redirect UNESCO definitions of endangered languages to Endangered language.
 * Note that if we're being paranoid about copyright on the definitions (options 2–5), we'll need to do something about the fact that the definitions I originally placed at Lists of endangered languages/UNESCO definitions are in the edit histories of almost every "List" article linked to from Lists of endangered languages: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_endangered_languages_in_Bangladesh&diff=656017976&oldid=576301880] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_endangered_languages_in_India&diff=656018219&oldid=654606370] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_endangered_languages_in_Indonesia&diff=656018223&oldid=653490043] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_endangered_languages_in_Nepal&diff=656018226&oldid=576448355] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_endangered_languages_in_Europe&diff=656018217&oldid=655912300] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_endangered_languages_in_Russia&diff=656018236&oldid=576272565] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Australian_Aboriginal_languages&diff=656037650&oldid=650209996] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_endangered_languages_in_Papua_New_Guinea&diff=656018235&oldid=576272737] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_endangered_languages_in_Canada&diff=656018198&oldid=576467103] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_endangered_languages_in_Mexico&diff=656018224&oldid=616454368] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_endangered_languages_in_the_United_States&diff=656018245&oldid=639702326] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_endangered_languages_in_Brazil&diff=656018199&oldid=641206816] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_endangered_languages_in_Colombia&diff=656018213&oldid=576304624] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_endangered_languages_of_the_Pacific&diff=656018247&oldid=651337572]. But in that case, are we also going to be paranoid about the fact that all of the "List" articles linked to from Lists of endangered languages are themselves copying information published under the same license in the same UNESCO source? This is why I suggest we wait to see what UNESCO is going to say about the licensing of all of this information. - dcljr (talk) 03:01, 6 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.

Dangit
<div class="boilerplate rfd vfd xfd-closed" 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 retarget. --BDD (talk) 17:46, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


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

The target is a disambiguation page for places and people named "Dang", none of which are also known as "Dangit". Retargeting to Damnation might be one option. I guess it depends on the consensus for what to do with all the other minced oaths that have been nominated today. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 12:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Retarget per nom. Rubbish computer 22:31, 4 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.

Goink
<div class="boilerplate rfd vfd xfd-closed" 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) 17:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


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

Delete — alleged to be an ethnic slur for people of mixed Chinese & Korean descent, but outside of Urban Dictionary & sources which quoted them I can't find anyone actually using the word this way, it clearly has other meanings, and anyway that topic is not covered by the target. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 12:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak add to List of ethnic slurs and retarget there if valid sources can be found. Otherwise, delete per nom. Steel1943  (talk) 15:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Retarget per Steel1943. Rubbish computer 22:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment there are a great number of sources reporting that Urban Dictionary claimed it's an ethnic slur . (It sounds a lot more like something made up in school one day). I can't find a source which outright states in its own editorial voice that it's an ethnic slur, though I'm sure if we trawl the gutter for Buzzfeed-style "You won't BELIEVE how many billion people Phil Jackson might have offended!" sites I'm sure we can find one that was dumb and careless enough to do so. I note also, for example, that "fucking [any real English-language ethnic slur]s" will get you thousands of GHits, but "fucking goinks" has precisely zero, and even the singular "fucking goink" has only four uses an an insult, none of which seem to be directed towards a particular ethnic group. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 00:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Gonk, which is a disparaging term associated with Asian culture generally although not without any specific ethnic implications (just like how a pasty white Canadian can refer to another pasty white Canadian as his "onii-chan~"). I think the only reason we have "Goink" being used by anyone at all is probably a minor twerking of "Gonk" (just like "Go fug yourself" came from, well, you know). CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:07, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, well, after trying to look up more details about where the hell the term "Goink" came from and what it means, there seems to be no one single agreed upon definition. I've changed my mind. Let's just leave the text red: Delete. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:28, 5 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.

Rejection of profanity
<div class="boilerplate rfd vfd xfd-closed" 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) 13:24, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Rejection of profanity → Minced oath (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rejection_of_profanity&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

The redirect targeting Minced oath just isn't correct. A minced oath isn't the rejection of profanity, but rather an altercation. The title of the redirect is a bit suitable for a WP:REDLINK deletion in regards to a possible subject for the rejection of profanity in different cultures, etc. With that being said, weak retarget to Profanity or delete. Steel1943 (talk) 06:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - The only logical target would be the general article for Profanity, but even that feels like a stretch. I'd rather just get rid of this altogether. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as there appears to be no suitable target. Rubbish computer 10:44, 4 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.

Mother trucker
<div class="boilerplate rfd vfd xfd-closed" 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 retarget to Motherfucker. --BDD (talk) 17:39, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Mother trucker → Minced oath (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mother_trucker&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]
 * Mother-trucker → Minced oath (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mother-trucker&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

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 isn't identified by subject at the target. 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) 06:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * REtarget to Motherfu& since that is actually what it is. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 06:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Retarget to motherfucker as this appears to be the most suitable target. Rubbish computer 10:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Retarget oper 70,51 and Rubbish Computer. WP:MNOTCENSORED, and this iis mealy-mothed. Si Trew (talk) 15:07, 4 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.

Shootdangit
<div class="boilerplate rfd vfd xfd-closed" 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) 17:38, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


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

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) 06:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * REtarget to damnation since that's where goddammit leads to -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 06:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment not on Wiktionary and probably doesn't meet inclusion criteria there either (wikt:WT:ATTEST). 58.176.246.42 (talk) 06:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Retarget to damnation as a plausible synonym. Rubbish computer 10:46, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as an implausible synonym for anything in Wikipedia. It's two minced oaths run together in a way that is extremely rare (I get only 93 non-duplicate GHits), with no particular reason to retarget to one rather than the other (why not shit, for which "shoot" is a minced oath), so it should also be deleted per WP:XY. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 12:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per 58 as it is impossible to know what someone is looking for. The stats are less than 1 per day, which is next to nil. -- Tavix ( talk ) 02:07, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - I agree with the above arguments. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:44, 5 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.

Strewth
<div class="boilerplate rfd vfd xfd-closed" 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) 17:44, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


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

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) 06:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment has this ever been used as the past tense form for "to strew" (to distribute)? -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 07:38, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: Yes, in the King James Bible, new testament, they strewed their Lord with lilies, and indeed Graham Chapman as Brian thus spake in Life of Brian. Si Trew (talk) 19:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm an idiot, that would be strewn as past historic. Si Trew (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Retarget but not sure quite where. No, it is an Australianism for "(God's) Honest Truth". I just happen to know that because "strew" is kinda my mame. Retarget to Australian slang, I think, or something similar, it is just strine. Si Trew (talk) 19:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Soft redirect to strewn, where someone can find what they're looking for. -- Tavix ( talk ) 02:09, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not happy with that, Tavix, as the Wikt article just says it is past participle of "strew". We don't have strew here at Wikipedia (and I am resisting the temptation to redirect it to User:SimonTrew so that would seem a bit WP:RFD confusing. I did declare a special interest here in that it just happens to be how I write my name and my signature, in real life, as "strew". Si Trew (talk) 06:32, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * , I think I agree with you here. Delete per WP:R. -- Tavix ( talk ) 20:32, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm deleting my retarget vote. I don't really mind if it is kept, I am sometimes known as one of a pair of trews since I am a twin (though we are seldom seen together, living a long way apart from each other: you'll be glad to hear that one of us is a tall, rich, successful good looking blond, but I am the other one), and so I am used to having puns on my surname and that don't bother me, but I just genuinely think this is confusing and I agree with Tavix it should go Delete. Si Trew (talk) 06:53, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment you might also notice that my surname is about the only one, at least an English one, that you can type on one hand on your QWERTY keyboard. Leaves the other hand free for choking down booze and fags. Si Trew (talk) 07:01, 14 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.

By word
<div class="boilerplate rfd vfd xfd-closed" 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 dabify Byword—thanks to Neelix for doing that—and retarget the rest there. --BDD (talk) 17:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


 * By word → Minced oath (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=By_word&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]
 * By-word → Minced oath (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=By-word&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]
 * Byword → Proverb (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Byword&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]
 * Bywords → Proverb (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bywords&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

From what I am seeing per research, "by-words" aren't exclusively/always "minced oaths", so there is an WP:XY issue here. So, probably soft retarget to Wiktionary or delete. Steel1943 (talk) 05:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: The closest retargeting option I could find that could somewhat resolve the WP:XY issue is Word of mouth, but that may still be too vague. Steel1943  (talk) 06:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Retarget to proverb since that is where byword leads to. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 06:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That statement enforces my WP:XY concern. On that note, I have added Byword and Bywords to this nomination. (I do not think that a disambiguation page would be appropriate due to the lack of a strong connection between the term "byword" and these subjects.) (Withdrew this statement due to now being neutral on creating a disambiguation page, as mentioned below in the discussion.  Steel1943  (talk) 19:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC))  Steel1943  (talk) 06:55, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * byword means "proverb" WP:POFRED shows that redirects are used for synonyms to target the article where the topic appears. There's no problem here. We can always convert "byword" to a disambiguation page, to point to synonym, nickname, epithet, and proverb, instead of having a hatnote on "proverb". Or repoint all of them to "synonym" and hatnote to the others. At any rate, we have articles on the topics that this is an alternate name for, so wiktionary is the wrong place to go, since content appears on Wikipedia for this topic(s). It's not as if no content appears on Wikipedia, and therefore it should go to Wiktionary, we actually have articles on the topic(s) on Wikipedia. Wiktionary already shows this has strong connections to the topics per POFRED alternate names for our topics. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 07:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Create Page / Retarget All To New Page - {Edited} So that we have all four terms going to something that lists the alternate meanings of the word. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Create page per CWM. Rubbish computer 10:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * <s{Delete all' > to enable the creation of the page. I'll have a go atDraft:Byword but not right now. I think in Shapkespeare somewher, and certainly used a lot by Alan Coren, ("My name is not dropped in literary circles, I am no byword when plumbers pass by") so sourcing RS should not be too hard. Si Trew (talk) 15:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Retarget all to Byword, which I have expanded to be a disambiguation page. Deleting these redirects won't enable the creation of a new article about the word. If anyone wants to create such an article, they are free to do so while the redirects remain intact. Neelix (talk) 17:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep that makes more sense, Retarget all. Struck my delete above, Si Trew (talk) 19:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Ot tried to but had a bit of sneeiying dunno why, I get hay fever but it is not the time of year for that. Tried again. Si Trew (talk) 19:16, 4 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.

Drat
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 15%23Drat

Danged
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 15%23Danged

'sfoot
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 15%23'sfoot

'Sblood
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 14%23'Sblood

Egad
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 14%23Egad

Gosh darn
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 14%23Gosh darn

For crying out loud
<div class="boilerplate rfd vfd xfd-closed" 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 Retarget as, to which I shall Rcat, and no-brainer. (non-admin closure) Si Trew (talk) 10:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


 * For crying out loud → Minced oath (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=For_crying_out_loud&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

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) 05:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not a minced oath. My mother used to shout this at me when I was six years old, and she did not mince her words(but I have never known her swear, "bloody" is about as far as she gets). I have marked it as R from other caps.


 * Retarget to For Crying Out Loud -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 07:21, 4 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.

Chrissake
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 12%23Chrissake

Gawt deem
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 12%23Gawt deem

Jeez
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 12%23Jeez

Dagnabbit
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 11%23Dagnabbit

<span id="What the ****">What the ****
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 11%23What the ****

Fugged
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 11%23Fugged

<span id="Frig (interjection)">Frig (interjection)
<div class="boilerplate rfd vfd xfd-closed" 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 procedural close on the first, retarget the rest to Frig (interjection). Thanks, Neelix! --BDD (talk) 13:15, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


 * <span id="Frig (interjection)">Frig (interjection) → Minced oath (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frig_(interjection)&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]
 * Frigged → Minced oath (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frigged&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]
 * Frigger → Minced oath (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frigger&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]
 * Friggers → Minced oath (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Friggers&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]
 * Friggin → Minced oath (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Friggin&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]
 * Friggin' → Minced oath (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Friggin%27&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]
 * Frigging → Minced oath (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frigging&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]
 * Frigs → Minced oath (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frigs&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

The redirect(s) is/are example(s) of (a) minced oath, but the redirect(s) is/are not identified by subject at the target article. For the reason, the helpfulness of the(se) redirect(s) is questionable since the subject of the redirect isn't identified as a subject, but goes to an article which it is an example. For these reasons, unless (a) good retargetting option(s) can be found for the(se) redirects, I say either soft retarget to Wiktionary (if there is a corresponding entry) or delete. Steel1943 (talk) 05:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Wiktionary has all of them: . Agree that current target is unhelpful, in particular given the WP:XY issue - it has other meanings besides its use as a minced oath. Not sure whether it's better to soft redirect or delete. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 05:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * REtarget all (excpet "interjection") to frig since there's multiple values there that can take these terms. Add an explicit link to fu& to the dab page for an additional value. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 06:52, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * From what I am seeing on Frig, that is actually false. The only term on there these could refer is the subject of Frig (interjection) ... which, of course, is a redirect to Minced oath and part of this nomination. Steel1943  (talk) 07:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not the pheasant plucker, I'm the pheasant plucker's son. And I'm only plucking pheasant 'til the pheasant plucker comes. Si Trew (talk) 16:14, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There's two values, "sexual intercourse" and "masturbation" that appears on the disambiguation page, aside from the interjection value, so yes, there are multiple values there. With the addition of the new entry, that would be another. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 07:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * At any rate, "frigs" should point there regardless, as a plural, since it is a list of multiple frig values, they are frigs. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 07:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Disagree I think Frig should go to Frigate,, but in civil engineering (or perhaps very uncivil enginnering) a frig factor is what to add in to covertt hat at walls are never square nor cables cut to the right length, or as a good friend of mine once did, being paid by the metre, As a Chartered Engineer once quoted to me, "Do the estimates and add ten percent for luck". Much as I love{{{tlx|convert}}, we still have not yet the tag   there.
 * If, like my good mate Fred, you get a job and told to do the bannister]s, stair rods and stair rails while his mate did the walls, while you are paid by the square metre, he lost on that one!. But it is not, as far as I am aware, a roundabout way of pretending not saying "fuck". Si Trew (talk) 09:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment. It's OK to say "Fuck" here by the way. I don't link the word and especially hate "cunt", which women seem more to oibject to, but WP:NOTCENSORED. This discussion would be easier if others were not quite so mealy-mouthed. Si Trew (talk) 10:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Retarget all to fuck as appears to be the most suitable target. Rubbish computer 11:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Retarget all to Fuck - "Frigging" is discussed as a minced oath alternative to "fucking" on that article, so that's certainly a valid target, and also the best one I can see. If there are other valid targets, they can be linked via a hatnote. Neelix (talk) 15:52, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Retarget all . Indeed, and nobody ever looks up frog (disambiguation), cos everyone knows what a frog is. James Thurber has it somewhere as when playing some word game he looked up "dog", to find it means feed-dog, hangdog and so forth. I think he wrote "Nobody ever looks up 'dog' in the dictionary, because everyone knows what a dog is'. (I had an with Neelix (Nice ta see ya, Neelix) so I hope I have not disturbed any others' comments.)Si Trew (talk) 15:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC))
 * No, ho, we cannot do that. Frig itself is a DAB, which doesn't mention its use as going round the houses to say "Fuck" at all. Which considering its long and ancient history, as documented encylopaeidacallay at Fuck, deserves a mention at that DAB. Too many people being too mealy-mouthed here. I rarely swear, but we are discussing swear words, so it is hardly evitable though it may be inevitable.Si Trew (talk) 16:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Articallify All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC).


 * Retarget all to Frig (interjection) - I have expanded Frig (interjection) into an article. Thank you for the idea, Rich! Neelix (talk) 19:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "Frigs" should still point to the dab page -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 04:31, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree; Frig (interjection) is the only entry on the disambiguation page that could be referred to as "frigs". Neelix (talk) 11:38, 6 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.