Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 April 27

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 per WP:G7, author request. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:38, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Walter K. Armistead → Walker Keith Armistead  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Walter Armistead → Walter K. Armistead  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete; I misread the first name of this person in creating the redirects. RobDuch (talk) 20:36, 27 April 2019 (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.

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 disambiguate. @Sangdeboeuf, Feminist, SMcCandlish, and Hobit: I have drafted a disambiguation page based on this discussion. Please edit it as you see fit. Deryck C. 20:29, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Gender feminism → Who Stole Feminism?  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I have just closed the RfC on at Talk:Gender feminism#Request for comment: merge proposal where there was clear consensus that the page should not remain as a standalone entry, but opinion was divided over whether it should be converted into a disambiguation page or redirected to Who Stole Feminism? I am nominating this as a pro forma per my closing statement and remain neutral on the issue. I shall ping in the participants from the RfC shortly. SITH (talk) 20:07, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Pinging RfC participants. SITH (talk) 20:10, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Richard John Neuhaus discussed gender feminism in 1991 (and 1992), crediting Sommers with coining the term in this 1990 paper. Cheers, gnu57 21:41, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure I'd consider First Things a particularly authoritative journal when it comes to the terminology of sociology and gender studies. In any case Neuhaus only mentions "Christina Sommers’ useful distinction between 'liberal feminism' and 'gender feminism'" and then summarizes Sommers' argument on the subject. That doesn't imply she coined the term. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:06, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, sorry, all I meant was that Sommers had published on the idea and other people had taken it up well before her book was published in 1994. (And in the 1990 paper Sommers does present the term as something she's coining: "These gender feminists, as I shall call them, view social reality in terms of the 'sex-gender system'.") Cheers, gnu57 02:39, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - hmmm...wondering what would be included in the dab? Maybe the redirect should go to Feminism which covers the topic in great detail and also gives readers a chance to see the series nav box which provides more article choices than a dab would? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:05, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The options for disambiguation covered in the RfC included Difference feminism, Care-focused feminism, and Who Stole Feminism?. No one suggested that it's a synonym for Feminism writ large (at least according to published RSes), and the term isn't used in that article, so such a redirect would serve no useful purpose (Where does it cover the topic "in great detail"?). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:40, 27 April 2019 (UTC) (edited 03:50, 29 April 2019 (UTC))[reply]
• Per my comments in the RfC, I prefer this be a dab page. That said, the page as it exists needs to go away, so I'll accept any reasonable redirect as a second choice. Hobit (talk) 02:01, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate per my comments at the RfC:If this term has multiple meanings which we cover in other articles, it's ambiguous and should be turned into a disambiguation page. How the term was coined or popularized does not matter. feminist (talk) 10:32, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate. This not only has other uses that don't pertain to that book, the term seems to pre-date it anyway, even if the book popularized it and provided what may be the most common definition/understanding.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:01, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate: even if uses of the term beyond Sommers' own are a bit thin, there may be sources we haven't found. So disambiguation seems better than mis-identifying a primary topic. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:09, 4 May 2019 (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.

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:25, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Popular (Cher Lloyd song) → Cher Lloyd discography  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unable to find a mention of this song at target page, the target page at date of creation of the redirect or on either album released in the name of Cher Lloyd. Richhoncho (talk) 19:54, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Appears to be an unreleased song but the redirect is of no use if it's not mentioned anywhere. PC78 (talk) 22:29, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as is not at target. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 07:55, 3 May 2019 (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.

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 disambiguate. Yeah, I voted, but consensus is clear. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 17:47, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Cv → Template:Uw-copyright  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Seems more appropriate to redirect to Template:Like resume, as CV is another name for resume. Launchballer 21:36, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• No opinion but on Wikipedia CV means CopyVio Legacypac (talk) 00:47, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: For what it's worth, at the present time, this redirect has no transclusions. Steel1943 (talk) 18:06, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't suppose it would! It was my understanding that warnings were supposed to be substituted.--Launchballer 19:08, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  The only reason I stated what I stated is to show that this redirect is safe to delete or retarget since it has no transclusions (which is a rather valid concern since retargeting a transcluded redirect potentially breaks things.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:21, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Steel1943. WP:XY applies here. feminist (talk) 01:42, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Template:Copyvio as it seems to be the most appropriate target. funplussmart (talk) 22:44, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Imagine that there were no possible meaning except copyvio. Would this have been nominated? Or if curriculum vitae were the only possible meaning, would it have been nominated? No and no: the only problem is that it's ambiguous. Solution: disambiguate. Nyttend (talk) 00:31, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambig per Nyttend. Yes, disambiguation pages can and do exist in template space. Thryduulf (talk) 07:52, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate per Nyttend and Thryduulf; that seems like the best option all things considered. Anyone wanting to verify the existence of disambiguation pages in the template namespace can go to Category:Template disambiguation pages. Geolodus (talk) 18:26, 30 April 2019 (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.

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. - Nabla (talk) 20:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Uncontrollable shitting → Diarrhea  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I think a better redirect for this title would be Fecal incontinence, because that's what uncontrollable crapping is. It does not always mean diarrhea. Colgatepony234 (talk) 02:44, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, unlikely search term. PKT(alk) 11:54, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per PKT. Yes, this does (literally) mean fecal incontinence, but when one refers to the inability to control defecation, one doesn't typically use the vulgarity — "uncontrollable shitting" is much more likely to be a figurative use for who-knows-what than a literal use for fecal incontinence. Nyttend (talk) 17:42, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No obvious target and hardly ever used. Station1 (talk) 21:54, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete should have been G3 for hoax. Graywalls (talk) 15:07, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is stupid. Natureium (talk) 15:17, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an implausible search term. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 10:29, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - or redirect to potty mouth. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 10:43, 4 May 2019 (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.