|
Assburger syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) RfD, DRV, related RFD
Although I release this is from quite a long time ago, I would also like to add that I believe this is a valid misspelling and not some form of insult. I myself have AS, but as a child, I believed it to be spelt this way. I don't see how the original page was harming anybody. ~CortalUXTalk? 03:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I linked prior discussions for convenience. I recommend focusing on the DRV and possibly the related RFD. I think they may have come to different consensus readings. GRBerry 04:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd support allowing recreation of this redirect. Very reasonable misspelling. In fact, I recently noticed this wasn't an existing redirect and was shocked that it wasn't. VegaDark (talk) 06:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- STRONG keep deleted This goes beyond a "valid misspelling" to being blatantly offensive. The redirect itself is childish and unencyclopedic. Note that this misspelling is used in very unflattering ways towards those with the syndrome elsewhere and this redirect will only support this sort of ignorance. Themfromspace (talk) 08:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Indeed, I feel the opposite is true; allowing this redirect brings the reader straight to a properly spelled page. Unschool 08:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
-
- So by that logic, Themfromspace, would you have us eliminate all redirects based upon common or likely mispellings? Because we don't want to "endorse the comparison"? I thought that the purpose of a redirect was to increase the likelihood that a reader will find the information for which she is searching. Unschool 07:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems very reasonable to allow as a redirect. Even if someone originally created it with ill-intent, it still likely serves a good purpose. Unschool 08:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Going through the sequence, there has been a consensus to delete Assburger syndrome and to keep Assburger's syndrome. The latter was speedied as an attack page, which deletion was incorrect as pages that have previously gone through a deletion process aren't eligible for speedying. I can't speak as to whether this may be offensive or not, but both are plausible redirects, so restore both. Stifle (talk) 09:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow restoration. That's what a child looking for information on the syndrome might enter into the search box. Sandstein 09:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow restoration. This should be allowed asa redirect. RP459 (talk) 17:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow restoration as a redirect. Just because you would never spell it this way doesn't mean anyone else wouldn't. Having it as a redirect only endorses the fact that we understand people may misspell it, nothing more. --Kbdank71 18:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep deleted offensive, divisive; if this usage were so common and notable, perhaps an article could be written on the topic as we have for other offensive words, but no one including the "allow restoration" folks has posited that possibility and I am doubtful that there's any basis in fact for it. In lieu, offensive redirect should be kept deleted. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a "usage", it's a simple naive decomposition (to smaller words containing the same sounds) of how the proper term is pronounced. --Random832 (contribs) 05:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you type in the deleted phrase, WP's search engine asks: "Did you mean: Asperger syndrome". So no one has lost their way, but we've retained a little decency. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- List at RfD (on whether undeletion is appropriate prior to listing I've no opinion) As Stifle and GRBerry intimate, the procedural posture here is a bit muddied and probably suboptimal, and I don't know that one can reasonably draw any firm conclusion about whether a consensus existed for the preservation or exists for the creation of Assburger syndrome, Assburger's, Assburger's syndrome, or Assburger, or even whether the community are inclined to treat each of those a single fashion; because it is (at least almost always, and apparently here) appropriate that we consider substantive issues at XfD, listing at RfD would seem in order (if we are determined to resolve the issue here, this may be construed as an "allow restoration" of any plausible permutation, consistent with my !vote at the ongoing looney bin --> psychiatric hospital RfD). Joe 21:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore, but only as a redirect, as it's a somewhat plausible search term. It might even help to protect the redirect to keep any childish vandalism to a minimum. Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Is there any example of that vandalism actually occuring?--chaser (away) - talk 03:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep deleted, horribly unencyclopedic title and nothing has changed since the previous discussions. --B (talk) 02:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. "horribly unencyclopedic title"? I don't understand this comments, as this is a discussion about establishing a redirect from a misspelling. There is no discussion here about any article titles. Unschool 08:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Getting to the right article is still trivial without the redirect. Doing a search or simply clicking "Go" for "Assburger syndrome" both reveal
- Did you mean: Asperger syndrome
- and the link in turn takes you to appropriate search results. The only difference between search and "go" is that search gives information closer to the top of the page. The variations above (Assburger's, etc.) all give essentially the same results. The discussion we're having is about restoring a divisive redirect that was properly deleted at RFD. Does it really help people find information that they wouldn't get to otherwise? Not much. Enough to justify the fight over it? I don't know.--chaser (away) - talk 03:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore as a redirect in the same manner that Old timers disease serves a useful purpose as a redirect. I can't see the original discussion anywhere to endorse or overturn it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore as redirect How exactly is Assburger offensive? Is it because it implies that people with this syndrome have ground beef posteriors? I find that a bit ridiculous. If the concern is with the inclusion of the vulgar word "ass"? If so, then I suppose Assberger should be deleted as it is just as offensive. What about Burkina Fasso, is that offensive towards the Burkinabé? There is a reason Wikipedia is not censored, so that we don't have to make these decisions that compound and spin out of control, ultimately restricting us from making this an easy-to-use encyclopedia.-RunningOnBrains 00:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
