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) 17:33, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Hitting it up → Masturbation (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Not used at target. Also could be interpreted as something related to money (hitting someone up for cash). Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 23:05, 9 March 2014 (UTC

• Delete I was inclined to have this retargetted to Hit to give users access to its wiktionary entry. However, since it isn't clearly mentioned there then I guess this is better off as deleted instead.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:51, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• DAB. I am not sure since unfortunately I don't have references here at the mo, but couldn't this also mean "shooting up" (which leads to drug injection) or painting the town red (which to my surprise is a redlink)? At least in the UK I have never heard it used in the sense of "masturbation" but that might just be a variance of English or just that I lead a very quiet life :) ... Si Trew (talk) 04:43, 10 March 2014 (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. --BDD (talk) 17:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Poopsykins → South Park (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

I've seen every episode and I can't remember this ever being said (unless this is a typo and I'm just not pronouncing it right). In any case, this phrase isn't used in the article, and anybody who somehow ends up searching it will just be left scratching their head. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 23:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I am not well up on South Park but I found a link here at deviantart.com by "MrsCartman" to a drawing of Cartman from South Park with a puppet frog (essentially as far as I see it a satirisation of Kermit the Frog or perhaps of Charles M. Schulz' Peanuts character Linus with his security blanket or maybe a mix of the two), called "Poopsikins", so I could quite believe (or disbelieve) it might have been a fleeting mention in South Park in the style of that cartoon. But Poopsikins doesn't exist, it's not mentioned at the target, and if anything it should redirect to the "correct" spelling (but without having the scripts who knows what the "correct" spelling is?) Neither variation is listed at List of South Park cast members nor more relevantly at List of South Park characters. I would imagine if it was mentioned it must have been kinda a fleeting allusion and so not very notable. But I am not a South Park addict, I just don't remember and I just add a few links etc for others better to judge. Si Trew (talk) 05:02, 10 March 2014 (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. JohnCD (talk) 17:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• كعكي → Cookie Monster (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Arabic-language equivalent for the Cookie Monster. See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 April 17, where it was mentioned as "should be deleted" in a discussion about the Hebrew name for the Cookie Monster. I quote the nomination there: "Cookie monster comes from the American TV series, Sesame streets, right? So what's the point of redirecting from non-English characters?". Nyttend (talk) 18:51, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete foreign language redirect to a topic originally English-language (American) from New York City. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 04:36, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per 70.50. Si Trew (talk) 04:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The Cookie Monster isn't native in Arabian culture nor has a great impact in their culture.--Lenticel ^(talk) 07:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - unambiguously redirects readers to the subject matter they're looking for. Since no one has suggested any reason one might delete the redirect, it's had to address the delete position, which appears to be wholly unsupportable. WilyD 10:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing admin, this is a bad-faith comment; WilyD is well aware of our standards on this kind of thing. See his comments at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 August 25, where others easily refute his arguments. Nyttend (talk) 13:15, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am not particularly well up on Arabic, I forgot most of what I learned but a search for "كعكي" does bring up on (insert favourite search engine) lots of references to Sesame Street. Still, if it is notable in Arabic it should be at WP:AR and not WP:EN, it is not on the transwiki and so currently presumably not notable in Arabic. Si Trew (talk) 22:14, 11 March 2014 (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 retargeted to Rear end, which is now a dab per RfD. --BDD (talk) 17:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Rear-end → Rear-end collision (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

See march 8 discussions, entry name: rear end, same reason. Yutah Andrei Marzan Ogawa¹²³|UPage|_☺★ (talk) 09:53, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Anrewi Marzan, one has a hyphen and one doesn't but they go to the same target, the question should be whether that target is the best place to take them both, but in my opinion both should go to the same since that is just a stylistic difference. Si Trew (talk) 15:05, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Repoint to rear end when that becomes a disambiguation page per the March 8 RFD -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 06:51, 11 March 2014 (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 keep. The redirect wasn't actually tagged, by the way, but consensus is clear. --BDD (talk) 17:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Philosphy → Philosophy (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Delete the redirect from Philosphy to Philosophy. It doesn't make sense to redirect misspellings unless it's really common, and stats.grok.se shows this redirect is hardly ever used. Severoon (talk) 05:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Philosophy. Seems to be a likely typo but this is a double redirect so might as well go where the target goes. Si Trew (talk) 15:07, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, since it's an easy mistake to make, and it's not hurting anything. Nyttend (talk) 18:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes to keep it, but it goes around the houses, Philosphy is itself a typo to Philosophy which is why I suggested the retarget. I see no harm in keeping it as a likely typo, but there's no need for it to go via another typo. Si Trew (talk) 04:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I corrected the template because I think I got it backwards. I think we should delete this redirect because it's barely ever used. It doesn't make sense to have redirects for all typos and misspellings, no matter how unpopular. Severoon (talk) 09:34, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - plausible typo. If there was a double redirect issue, it seems to be fixed now. Readers who do use it will find what they're looking for, and readers who don't use it won't encounter it, so only being used occasionally is not a reason to delete a redirect. WilyD 10:27, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But as I say above, this is hardly ever used, around one-third of a percent (152 visits out of 42,364 in the last 30 days according to stats.grok.se). I thought the process here was to look at actual data, not say "seems plausible" and vote keep. If Wikipedia's default behavior was to do a client redirect instead of a server, that would be one thing, but the way it works is to keep the botched URL. Wikipedia shouldn't have every typo redirected, and we should trust the data here that people hardly ever make this typo. Severoon (talk) 16:42, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Wily. Am I being a total idiot (I usually am)? I could swear that i jumped through a double redirect but I can't find anything in the history and my own comments would tend to indicate that it wasn't. Si Trew (talk) 15:07, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I suspect you misclicked something. Note that things have been changed: the nominator originally had Philosophy redirecting to Philosphy (as he says above, he's fixed it), which might have contributed slightly. Nyttend (talk) 15:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I clicked to the target of the original redirect as it was originally listed (I think) but I couldn't find in the history here at RfD that the nomination had been changed, nor at philosphy could I find that it had changed. I did look but couldn't find it. Si Trew (talk) 21:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as redirects are cheap and this one's seeing plenty of usage. (I'm not sure where Severoon got the number 152 - I get higher numbers - but even 152 views per month is more than enough to suggest it's a plausible typo.) Sideways713 (talk) 16:25, 17 March 2014 (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.