Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 June 22

< Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion | Log

June 22

edit

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 22, 2015.

Tommy Vannelli

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 all. Deryck C. 09:57, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:XY. Multiple potential targets with no way to determine what the reader is expecting to find. Also a bad faith creation since Dolovis, who is well known for starting bad redirects simply to grab the first edit on pages for presently non-notable people, is well aware that these are bad redirects as he has had several deleted for this very reason. Resolute 13:43, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. That's probably the first time I've seen WP:XY used for a redirect that doesn't contain the word "and". It makes perfect sense though. Until/unless they become notable, it's better to use the search engine than a narrow redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 15:10, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ehh, using "or" would fall under the same category in my mind. I'm thinking more along the lines of every time I've seen that rationale, the redirect explicitly listed the 2-3 articles that it could target to. This one doesn't. -- Tavix (talk) 16:30, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ivanvector (talk) 15:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No primary obvious target for the redirect, better off as a red link. -DJSasso (talk) 17:18, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Since -I- created the Jeff Costello redirect, it seems the above rant is non-topical and not fully researched. Anyway, you will find several similar redirects to the Senators' draft pick page. The idea was to redirect the search to the article where there was content, not that there is much. If you want, go ahead and delete those redirects. There are a few dozen. I guess I was wasting my time. Alaney2k (talk) 13:16, 23 June 2015 (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.

Ilyitsch

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 all to Ilyich. Deryck C. 09:50, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible / Lenin was not the only "Ilyich" The Theosophist (talk) 10:14, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I was wondering was whether llyich whould also go there. (caps I and lower L look identical in Courier New, at least at 10 point and below, as I have mentioned before: a fault of the font designer, there). Si Trew (talk) 21:20, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A plausible typo.   Done I have asked for the WMF font stack to prioritise fonts such as Ubuntu to fix these problems here, but to no avail. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:12, 23 June 2015 (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.

Crypto-Bismarckian

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. Deryck C. 09:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant. The Theosophist (talk) 10:12, 22 June 2015 (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.

User:Johannes Paul II

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 User:Pope Benedict XVI~enwiki, soften User:Johannes Paul II. Deryck C. 10:03, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Usernames cannot redirect to articles. The Theosophist (talk) 10:09, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well they can, and it's a rather harmless form of cross-namespace redirect I would think. But blank or revert these by all means. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:00, 22 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • It looks to me like User:Pope Benedict XVI was previously created and full-protected to uphold the usernames policy, but at some point when accounts were unified the account got moved to the "~enwiki" location. It is still full-protected, but the original location is not. I can't think of any reason why it shouldn't be there, so I suggest we move it back (move User:Pope Benedict XVI~enwiki → User:Pope Benedict XVI) and don't leave a redirect. As for the page then redirecting to the Pope Benedict XVI article, that's fine.
As for User:Johannes Paul II, that user was active briefly 9 years ago but the account is inactive. I'm not sure this would violate the usernames policy, and it is not currently protected, so I think that the redirect is fine in this case too. Ivanvector (talk) 15:40, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, wouldn't moving User:Pope Benedict XVI~enwiki be highly misleading and subversive of the whole unified account idea? --BDD (talk) 15:51, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
would it? I don't know. What does the tilde do? We don't have User:Pope Benedict XVI~itwiki or it:Utente:Pope Benedict for example: which would be closer to home. Si Trew (talk) 18:05, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's a consequence of WP:SUL. The following quote comes from m:Help:Unified login, which explains the process:

On 30 April 2013, the Wikimedia Foundation announced that the unified login system would be changing so that there would be only unique global accounts with the same username across all Wikimedia projects; there would be no two users sharing the same username on different wikis. With SUL finalization, all non-global accounts will be converted to global accounts where possible and if there is clash in the username, they will be renamed to have a "~" and the wiki name will be appended to the username. For example, an account with the username "Example" on the Dutch Wiktionary, which will be renamed, would become "Example~nlwiktionary". Initially, it was announced to take place in May 2013. However, this was delayed to August 2013, and in August 2013, this expectation was removed. The process is being completed in April 2015.

-- Tavix (talk) 18:20, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so to comply with unified accounts, we would have to properly rename the account to "Pope Benedict XVI", then the unification should be preserved (as far as I can tell). The idea isn't that everyone's account name is the same on every wiki, just that a single login works for every Wikimedia site (again, I think). I really don't know how all of that works though. Since the user is blocked maybe it's not important. Ivanvector (talk) 20:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm split on this one.
  • Convert User:Johannes Paul II's user page into a soft redirect. This user actually wanted his page to redirect there, so the page should link there in some fashion. A soft redirect is a good compromise that preserves the user's intent without WP:ASTONISHing others when the user page automatically redirects you to the Pope's biography. -- Tavix (talk) 18:20, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Benedict user page was made into a redirect when the user was blocked for violating the usernames policy. If it's going to be reverted, it should be reverted to this version, or made into a soft redirect per Tavix. Soft redirecting Johannes Paul is a good solution too, so soft redirect both to their current targets. Ivanvector (talk) 20:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I give up. This is just totally confusing to me. I have no idea where Tavix or Ivanvector actually want them to go since they seem to be saying different things. Si Trew (talk) 23:17, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because we are saying different things... -- Tavix (talk) 01:28, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, because they will notice that they were redirected to an article. Anyway, nobody would try to leave a message to those two. The first one made five edits in 2006 (one in an article, four in his user page) and the other was blocked in 2005 after one edit (in his user page).--The Theosophist (talk) 04:35, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, because they would not notice that they were redirected. I seen talk pages, where people did not notice where they ended up and left comments about the wrong topic. Expecting that everyone would notice, or that people would even understand what happened is a step to far. Many may well notice, but not everyone. This is clearly harmful. That they haven't edited in years does not mean someone will never leave them a message, especially with these usernames. -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 12:28, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refining my !votes, given some second thought. Delete User:Pope Benedict XVI~enwiki given Tavix' argument regarding the user being permablocked. The user's only contribution was creating the page before they were permablocked 10 minutes later. There's no reason to keep the page, and I sort of agree with 70.51 about the potential for harm if left as a redirect. However, soft redirect User:Johannes Paul II because this is not a blatant violation of the username policy, the user has made at least one substantial contribution outside of this user page, and I see the potential for unknowledgeable users attempting to contact the former Pope through the article's talk page as extremely minor, for three reasons: 1) there will be a notice at the soft redirect requiring users to click-through to the article, 2) if a user posts a message to the Pope at the article's talk page, one of the 900 or so watchers will respond with a kind message about how that's not appropriate, and 3) this Pope died ten years ago. Ivanvector (talk) 14:49, 23 June 2015 (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.

Joe Ratzinger

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) -- Tavix (talk) 13:46, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible. The Theosophist (talk) 10:07, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he is, but I'd Keep the redirect too. Si Trew (talk) 16:27, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, Joe is an English nickname of Joseph, not a German one.--The Theosophist (talk) 04:50, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
True, but this is English Wikipedia. Apparently someone thought this was useful (WP:RFD#KEEP #5). Ivanvector (talk) 14:52, 23 June 2015 (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.

Lolo Kiko

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 Pope Francis' visit to the Philippines. Deryck C. 09:37, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant. The Theosophist (talk) 10:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep legitimate nickname of the current pope. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete if the term isn't mentioned or explained at the target article; keep iff it is. Without context, it looks like nonsense. --BDD (talk) 14:13, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure how this "looks like nonsense" argument works. If someone wants to find out what "Lolo Kiko" means they should be taken to this article. I doubt anyone other than a hard-core editor would use "what links here" and if that's a problem we can use {{Redirect from pseudonym}}.
    As to whether it's in the article, are we then to monitor the article and add create and delete the redirect as and when "Lolo Kiko" is added and removed?
    All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:32, 22 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Yes. Making sure redirects are informative and functional takes work, but our readers are worth it. --BDD (talk) 13:53, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded. We also have the option of retargeting... Si Trew (talk) 09:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BDD. Not at target, websearch suggests it is Filipino e.g.
  • "Pope Francis recalls Filipinos calling him 'Lolo Kiko' as he speaks about the elderly". gmanetwork.com. 11 March 2015. Retrieved 22 June 2015.
User:Lenticel could probably add an expert opinion, as a Filipino speaker, but is on a short Wikibreak, I believe: Roughly, "Lolo kiko" means "grandfather", as far as I can tell. Surprised (and delighted) that iff goes that way. Si Trew (talk) 20:46, 22 June 2015 (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.

City of Monroe

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 Monroe#Places. --BDD (talk) 16:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This should be a disambiguation page for a number of cities named Monroe. The Theosophist (talk) 09:57, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Better just Monroe. Cities named "Monroe" or "Monroe City" could plausibly be referred to as "City of Monroe". --BDD (talk) 14:13, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed only 50% on the "Monroe Cities" are cities. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:34, 23 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Ah, I guess because it is on the List of townlands of County Westmeath. Well, that would be a better target for that entry on that DAB. I hate to think there are stack more redirects similarly, for Aghabrack, County Westmeath and so forth (let alone that the map at that list has "West Meath" as two words, so if kept presumably we should have "Monroe, Westmeath and Monroe, West Meath and Monroe, County West Meath and Monroe, West Meath County and Monroe, Ireland and Monroe, Eire etc cetera reductio ad absurdem). We don't even have West Meath. Si Trew (talk) 21:02, 22 June 2015 (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.

Talk:Internment of Japanese Americans/Archive 9

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 resolved. Let me know if there's anything I've mixed. --BDD (talk) 14:28, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a redirect to a talk page that contains a different talk page... The Theosophist (talk) 09:55, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

and their content.
And of course, check the other archives and any associated pages end up in the right place. But it seems that Archive 9 is the problem one since (at least) two moves took place while that archive was active.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:13, 22 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]
You had me worried for a minute, but Talk:Japanese American internment/Archive 9 is just a redirect to Talk:Japanese-American internment/Archive 9. I think there are still only two distinct pages here. --BDD (talk) 14:44, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes only two with content. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:06, 23 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]
@BDD: No, not at all.--The Theosophist (talk) 11:00, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it looks like all of it was the fault of Lowercase sigmabot III, who/which was programmed to archive old threads in archives containing the old title, and did not reflect the move for some reason. Thus, the old archives were moved to the correct title, but LS III threw newly-archived content to the redirect.--The Theosophist (talk) 11:06, 24 June 2015 (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.

Albert LaFache Einstein

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) 16:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant. The Theosophist (talk) 09:51, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Apparently old vandalism [1]. However the former has gained a kind of existence though "TURPI". Computational Linguistics and Intelligent Text Processing: 16th International Conference, Proceedings, Part 2. Springer. ISBN 9783319181172.</ref>, an explanation of TRUPI.
Therefore delete Thomas LaFache Mifflin.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete both. When it is referenced at the target, with e.g. the journal of the sixteenth international conference of cunning linguists, then it can be added. Until then, it is not WP:RS. I doubt Farmbrough had a copy at hand but more likely did an Internet search: but anyone can do that so it is not useful here. Si Trew (talk) 17:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no "RS" requirement for redirects. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:43, 22 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Indeed, but if the target of the redirect doesn't mention it, that is WP:RFD#D2 confusing or WP:RFD#D5 makes no sense, and WP:SURPRISE. Redirects exist in article namespace, and I feel that there is still the responsibility to have them make sense, and to obey WP:TITLE etc, with obvious exceptions for {{R from misspelling}}, {{R from title without diacritics}} and so on. In these cases, neither target mentions "LaFache" at all, and I doubt anyone with any sanity would suggest keeping them as {{R from other name}}: We don't have everz possible variation of "Albert" for "Albert Einstein", (although we do have Al Einstein → Albert Einstein, which queers my pitch a bit: and that's not currently tagged as anything, and I ain't sure what I would tag it with). If you want to add content at the targets nobody is stopping you, but until then, the redirects are surprising and harmful in that they hinder rather than help a search. Si Trew (talk) 22:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well I didn't express a preference about the Einstein one. But it would only be D2 confusing if there was a "real" Albert LeFache Einstein (or even Albert LeVache Eisenstein), it's not a D5 because if you asked 100 people who was meant by "Albert LeFache Einstein" most of them would probably say Albert Einstein or at least think of Einstein, whereas if you ask 100 people what is meant by "apple" you would be lucky (or unlucky) to find one who said "orange".
But be that as it may, for the simple reason that it was originally a vandalistic redirect, I cannot support it. If one day we have an article on TURPITRUPI I might change my mind. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:16, 23 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]
@Rich Farmbrough: But, what is this "TURPI"?--The Theosophist (talk) 11:00, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Twitter Recommendation Based on Users Personal Interests. Sorry about the typo. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 11:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete both, "LaFache" is not part of their names which makes these redirects nonsense. This is compounded by the fact that "LaFache" isn't mentioned in either article, so they aren't helping anybody. -- Tavix (talk) 13:53, 29 June 2015 (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.

Finality John

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 List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom by nickname#Lord John Russell. --BDD (talk) 16:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article states that he had the nickname "Finality Jack" which does not exist as a page. Should we delete "John" and create "Jack"? The Theosophist (talk) 09:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • 'Keep ' and create Finality Jack. Redirect is 10 years old. John and Jack are effective synonyms. Plenty of refs for "Finality John", creator's reference to Nuttal should have been a strong hint that some WP:BEFORE would have been appropriate here. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:28, 22 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete as WP:RFD#D2 confusing, WP:RFD#D5 makes no sense. The third Earl Russell, Bertrand Russell, is actually closer. The article only mentions "Finality Jack", not "Finality John". If the references were there, things may be different: But they're not. The remedy is to add the "plenty of references" to the article rather than to come here with it. Si Trew (talk) 16:44, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I disagree that John and Jack are "effective synonyms", whatever that means. Plenty of people have "Jack" as a given name, not as a nickname for "John". Si Trew (talk) 23:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"In English it is traditionally used as the diminutive form of the given name John, though it is also often given as a proper name in its own right." What I meant by "effectively" was "Don't argue the toss". All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:07, 23 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Unfortunately I do give a toss. Redirects are supposed to remove, not add, confusion. Si Trew (talk) 08:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:NOTDIC Wikipedia is not a dictionary, every synonym should not be listed in the article. Synonyms should be redirects to the article, but the article should not list every synonym. It is because alternate names are search terms people would use to look for a subject, so the redirect should exist. However, because of Wikipedia's rules against writing a synonyms section, we should not expect alternate names to exist in the destination article. "Finality John" is clearly a nickname for Lord John Russell. This is clearly why Redirects should carry Documentation, to explain why the redirect exists, (such as the proposed Draft:Template:Redirect documentation) to go along with other redirect documentation already appearing on redirect pages found with the template {{redr}}; In this case a {{redr}} is insufficient, so a second documentation template should be added below {{redr}} to explain why the redirect exists. -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 03:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@70.51.203.69:, Yeah, I remember discussing that draft template, I was in favour of it in principle. The discussion went a bit dead though. Si Trew (talk) 08:54, 29 June 2015 (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.

GeorgeHamiltonGordonAberdeen

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 June 30#GeorgeHamiltonGordonAberdeen

Former Naval Person

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 List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom by nickname#Winston Churchill. --BDD (talk) 16:27, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the article. The Theosophist (talk) 09:40, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sufficiently well known enough to have a reference at the target. "Not mentioned at target" is shorthand for WP:RFD#D2 confusing: I have argued specifically, and recently, that I should like that to be explicit in the guidelines. As it stands, it could just as well go to Bismarck or William Joyce or Eric Morecambe. The remedy is to add the reference at the target. Si Trew (talk) 16:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just added it, explained it, and cited it there. We should be good to go. -- Tavix (talk) 17:06, 23 Ju*e 2015 (UTC)
Retarget. Fine by me. Si Trew (talk) 08:48, 29 June 2015 (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.

Heath caper

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 as no-brainer as {{R from alternative capitalization}}}} (non-admin closure) by Si Trew (talk) 16:53, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the article. The Theosophist (talk) 09:37, 22 June 2015 (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.

Clunking fist

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 List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom by nickname#Gordon Brown. --BDD (talk) 16:23, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the article. The Theosophist (talk) 09:32, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • 'Delete'. Plenty of RS e.g.
but none in article, not our fault, therefore WP:RFD#D2 and WP:RFD#D10 to encourage the creation (well in this case expansion) of the article. Si Trew (talk) 11:12, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to section per Tavix (just refining my !vote above). "[The] Great clunking fist" RS here:
I can't find any quotes (RS or otherwise) for "great big clunking fist", not that that was suggested above... Si Trew (talk) 07:55, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've added those references to the list article, plus a ref with quote to the first mention by Blair quote in the Nov 2006 Queen's Speeach, verbatim from Hansard. Si Trew (talk) 08:20, 29 June 2015 (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.

Call me Dave

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 List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom by nickname#David Cameron. --BDD (talk) 16:21, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the article. The Theosophist (talk) 09:31, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Well known mokniker, e.g:

*KeepRetarget A well known nickname in the UK, which has been used for Cameron over several years, and has much to do with his wish to be seen as an ordinary guy. Another source here from the Spectator references it, and there's even a biography that uses the title. Numerous other sources can be provided as well. This is Paul (talk) 17:13, 22 June 2015 (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.

Webcameron

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 June 29#Webcameron

The STFU

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 Southern Tenant Farmers Union. --BDD (talk) 16:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Southern Tenant Farmers Union] per discussion of STFU redirect at RFD/2015-06-12/STFU; and add a hatnote at the farmers union article to point back to Pro-wrestling, where the meaning of STFU is covered, and the term STFU itself was discussed at talk:Professional wrestling holds and WT:WikiProject Professional wrestling -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 02:44, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per 7ö.51. If they go somewhere, and consensus is they should, they should go to the same place, otherwise it's a surprise. I felt that it was undue that they went there, but consensus is that they do. Therefore all should follow, as both 7ö.51 and meself said in the now-closed discussion to which 51 refers. For if not, the disambiguation page is a perfectly reasonablz place for people to go. Sodding kb Si Trew (talk) 08:31, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget provided suitable hatnotes are in place. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 11:59, 22 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Yes, we discussed the hatnotes. (Can't put a hatnote on a redirect.) Current target does not have hatnote for "The STFU redirects here", and if this is retargeted, doesn't need to, so that would just be makework to do so now only to remove it in a few days' time. If consensus is not to retarget, then the closing admin should probably add the hatnote as part of closing. Si Trew (talk) 22:20, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the current hatnote at Southern Tenant Farmers Union is good enough. I can find no valid and notable third meaning of STFU, so this seems the best solution. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:23, 23 June 2015 (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/2015_June_22&oldid=1037879489"