Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 November 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 14[edit]

Fapping → Masturbation[edit]

The result of the debate was keep. WjBscribe 13:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable, non-widely used slang term outside of the Internet. Does not appear in Wiktionary anymore as it was deleted from there. No dictionary, except Urban Dictionary, would recognise this as even valid slang. And Wikipedia is not intended to overrepresent contemporary, Western or internet bias in its coverage. Consider salting if deleted. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 19:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep Redirects are cheap, and I wouldn't consider using slang terms to redirect to the proper term as overrepresentation. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wiktionary accepts neologisms where Wikipedia does not. If even Wiktionary has deleted it, then I trust their judgment that this is an unstable and/or unsourced protologism. Even though redirects are cheap, we shouldn't encourage redirects of this type. Rossami (talk) 20:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to explain my comment: I only consider the neologism argument to come into play when discussing articles proper, not redirects. That said, I don't feel very strongly about it one way or the other, which is why it's a weak keep. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course the term isn't notable. Otherwise, we would have an article on it, not a redirect. Redirects don't have to be notable. They have to be useful, and valid search terms. I strongly believe that this is both. If one were to search for 'fap', one would need to ulitmately end up at masturbation. Thus, I believe it is a germane redirect, and should be kept. As a side note, I chuckle whenever I see the redirect WP:FAP. I (talk) 00:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the record, I had no idea of this meaning of "fap" when John and I created WP:FAP... WjBscribe 00:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The core issue is verifiability, not notability. Protologisms have not yet even risen to the level of neologism - they are inherently unverifiable. Once the word is accepted as at least a neologism, a redirect may be appropriate. The lexical experts at Wiktionary have determined that, so far, this alleged definition does not meet the standards. Rossami (talk)
  • What kind of sources are needed to verify this is used? And I checked the article, which has been deleted three times, but there is no link to a discussion (I do not edit Wiktionary, so I am unfamiliar with their processes). Do you have a link to where they decided this was not a valid term? I (talk) 03:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I could see someone typing this into the search bar and hitting "go", but I suspect they could pretty easily just type masturbation instead when it wasn't found. I cannot, however, think of a time when it would be reasonable for a WP article to use "fapping" instead of a more appropriate word. Not a terribly harmful redirect. i kan reed 00:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms should not apply to redirects. This is a synonym and an obvious search term. --- RockMFR 00:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:RockMFR. SparsityProblem 02:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep obvious synonym and search term. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 06:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is used as a synonym for the target page, it is a reasonable search term, and it's not going to be especially visible to those who don't search on it. Wiktionary got it wrong in this case. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Fap" is a far more prominent, popular slang term. You'll have a much harder time finding anybody who understands the "an hero" reference than you would finding somebody who knows what "fapping" means. There are certainly multiple ways to say "hell," but "heck" is far more popular than "h-e double hockey sticks," I'd dare to say. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment The question I asked myself was "How does this harm wikipedia or someone using wikipedia?" I could come up with no reasonable answer for that. There's very slight reason to keep the redirect as it is at least sensical. i kan reed 22:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep [1] [2] lots of ghits attest to this meaning. Valid search term. Redirects are cheap. -- 132.205.99.122 (talk) 19:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- redirects should get people to the articles they're looking for, just like this one does. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep obvious synonym with no other meaning. Reswobslc (talk) 01:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Fap already mentions this, only makes sense that we'd have Fapping as well. GlassCobra 01:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Alleged apartheid in the Basque Country → Segregation[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 00:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No such thing as an "alleged apartheid in the Basque Country". No records on Wikipedia about anything even remotely related to that. Redirect thus most unlikely to ever be typed/used. Húsönd 19:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Multiworm Egg → List of X-COM: Terror from the Deep races[edit]

The result of the debate was retarget to List of X-COM: Apocalypse races#Multiworm Egg. WjBscribe 00:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some user has been going creating inappropriate redirects related to the x-com series, redirecting articles, existing or new, concering creatures from various different games, to a completely arbitrary article based on the second of the series. The above example is a creature from the third game. i kan reed 18:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed it now. See my talk page. Also I removed the rfd template from the above listed page. I hope that's alright. --Eruhildo 21:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

WP:HOTTIE → User:GlassCobra/Hotties are always notable[edit]

The result of the debate was no consensus. There continues to be disagreement on whether WP: redirects should be reserved for Wikipedia: pages, useful pages, or some combination/subset. There is also disagreement over whether this is actually harmful. However, referencing joke pages during "serious" discussions (xfd, etc) is probably not a great idea. --- RockMFR 22:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cross space redirect - to essay userfied after MfD. If the community has deemed the essay unsutable for project space, there's no reason to have a redirect from there. Sexist overtones may be demeaning too. Serves no useful purpose, and not funny to boot. Docg 18:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Danny 18:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per precedent set by WP:CRATSTATS, WP:ADMINSTATS, etc. Also, CSD R2 states that "Redirects to the Talk:, User: or User talk: namespace from the article space" can be deleted, but "this does not include the Wikipedia shortcut pseudo-namespaces." GlassCobra 18:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Both of which link to potentially USEFUL things. And your quote is out of context, it refers to what can be speedily deleted - it isn't a rationale for RfD to keep it. Have you any other reasons?--Docg 18:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • From WP:RFD#DELETE, #5: "It is a cross-namespace redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace. The major exceptions to this rule are the 'WP:' shortcut redirects (like WP:RFD), 'CAT:' shortcut redirects and 'WT:' shortcut redirects, which technically are in the main article space but in practice form their own 'pseudo-namespaces'. All 'articles' beginning with 'WP:' are in fact redirects." So while the CSD quote was taken out of context, it's still valid because the exact same material is in the guidelines on this very page. GlassCobra 16:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC) Ah, didn't see that EVula had said this already just below me. GlassCobra 16:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This RfD is more ridiculous than the redirect itself. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a helpful reason. Please explain why you want to keep it.--Docg 18:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not trying to wikilawyer or anything, but WP:RFD#DELETE #5 says "It is a cross-namespace redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace. The major exceptions to this rule are the "WP:" shortcut redirects". The only reason for deleting this redirect is because it points to userspace, but so do plenty of WP: redirects. The "sexist overtones" bit is silly, and is more a reflection on the content of the redirected page than the redirect itself, and is utterly irrelevant. "Not funny" also isn't a valid reason, as that's just your opinion. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I would generally agree with EVula and GlassCobra, however on investigation of "what links here" it seems that WP:HOTTIE is already being cited in deletion discussions. Such use will only increase with time. Humour is generally fine but the use of that page in deletion discussions in the same way guidelines are usually cited is going to undermine those discussions, and may offend the subject of the article. There seems enough potential risk of embarassment to the project to make this redirect a bad idea. I disagree that the target is sexist however - I've heard the word "hottie" applied to both men and women and the target page covers both. WjBscribe 18:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would strongly disagree here. It's been cited in two AfDs total, once by me; both times very clearly as a joke. How are you coming to the conclusion that this use would increase? GlassCobra 18:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't find anyone citing WP:HOTTIE as anything other than a joke.[3][4][5] EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure that the fact its being used as a joke changes much. I don't have too much objection to such pages in userspace - though the point that they do nothing to help create an encyclopedia is IMO a good one - but I'm not convinved that AfD discussions are the place for such humour, especially when we're talking biographical articles under discussion. WjBscribe 18:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would consider the living people bit a valid concern, but at the same, there's nothing to keep people from citing "WP:HOTTIE" (note the linking). I'd say your concern is more of a behavioral issue, which I would put outside the bounds of an RfD; no XfD process is going to stop people from cracking jokes at AfD. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • True, but having joke redirects in official project space isn't exactly discouraging people from an action we all agree is undesirable. Again I'm asking what the upside of keeping this redirect it. Like WJB I've little interest in what you choose to have in userspace.--Docg 19:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally I would keep it, on basis I find it very funny and probably harmless. However, I'm experienced enough to know that both of these are non-reasons for keeping, so the closing admin can consider this a neutral. WaltonOne 19:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Besides thinking that WP:ATA is overcited and overrated, I think many of its arguments apply best to the mainspace only. For example WP:USEFUL is a great argument when it comes to templates. I think that similar arguments could be made here. IronGargoyle 22:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The fact that the article mentions men does not automatically make it non-sexist. SparsityProblem 22:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ridiculously strong delete The problem here is that anyone looking at their url bar will see "WP:" and there's not enough indication of this being a discernible non-policy(outside of common sense). False credibility could be used unreasonably. I'm all for keeping the user page, but not the redirect. Userfication does not mean there should be a redirect to user space. i kan reed 00:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I respect Xoloz's judgment overall, but I do think he erred in the close of the page itself. Keep in mind that many of the delete votes in the previous discussion were based on an unintentionally sexist and BLP-troublesome essay. These problems were fixed with editing, and it seemed as though the strong shift of consensus was heading towards keeping the humorous essay (now WP:SCREW decree). This is why the early closure is troublesome. As much as these discussions are not votes, when no hard policy concerns are present, the weight of community consensus must be taken into consideration. That being said, the end result of the MfD was not a removal of content (deletion), it was simply an administrative and procecural readjustment (hence why it would be pointless to send the close to DRV since Xoloz closed the discussion in good faith and nothing was lost). The end result of the MfD was that the purpose and spirit of the page be kept, albeit in a different location. A distinct flavor of wikipedia culture is the creation of humorous acronyms that link to various essays. To delete the redirect removes the point of the humorous essay (i.e. That people will read it and be amused). The point of such redirects are an ironic commentary on WP:OMGWTFBBQ. That essay is obviously a good rule of thumb when dealing with actual guidelines and policy... but something humorous? This nomination is missing the whole point (or attempting a deletion round-two because the nominator didn't like the outcome of the MfD). A large number of WP: redirects go to userspace. IronGargoyle 22:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The essay still looks pretty sexist to me. I don't think advancing Wikipedia culture in ways that make certain groups of editors feel like that culture isn't aimed at them is a good thing. SparsityProblem 22:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Last time I checked there were more male celebrities listed than female celebrities, and if you still think it is sexist, edit it. IronGargoyle 22:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Like I said, sexism is a matter of latent assumptions, not whether it mentions men and women in equal numbers. I'm not going to bother editing it because I don't think that would be a good use of my time, and if I took out the sexism, there wouldn't be much left. I don't think the essay serves a useful purpose. It's not very funny. SparsityProblem 23:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sparsity, we're not talking about the essay anymore, we're talking about the redirect. This isn't a deletion review. If you're really so displeased, you're more than welcome to edit the essay, as IronGargoyle stated. GlassCobra 23:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, and the redirect implies (to the casual reader, at least) some sort of official endorsement for this essay, which is why I'm talking about why it ought not to be framed in such a way. SparsityProblem 23:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The humor tag can be very easily replaced, if that's what you mean. Actually, I wasn't even the one that put the SCREW tag on there. And as we've also noted, it's clearly only being used as humor, and indeed only suited to be used as such. GlassCobra 23:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ask yourself "What good does this redirect do?" Anyone who wants to link to that page can, this redirect only makes it look like wikipedia policy. i kan reed 00:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It seems to me that if this gets removed then all the essay shortcuts should be removed (leaving only those redirecting to guidelines/policy). Honestly that might not be a bad thing, considering that the WP:ATA redirects are some of the most overused WP:OMGWTFBBQs on wikipedia (see also WP:BASH). Furthermore, I don't think anyone is going to mistake something called WP:DOUCHE, WP:HOTTIE or WP:REICHSTAG as wikipedia policy...To reply to i kan reed though, I could see this being used in a perfectly reasonable manner to make a humorous point about double-standards of notability. IronGargoyle 00:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I completely agree. Very good point. GlassCobra 00:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Makes sense, but I'll keep my vote as it was. Having a little fun while editing wikipedia is ok, just so long as it doesn't get in the way of making an encyclopedia. i kan reed 01:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I fail to see how this is any more or less disruptive than any of the shortcuts that IronGargoyle posted; which, for the record, I think are hardly disruptive at all. GlassCobra 04:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The humour and/or appropriateness of the essay are a matter for debate (at WP:MFD, if necessary), but this particular redirect is harmless. Most essays have some kind of shortcut, especially the 'silly' ones, and I don't see why this one should be any different. (Indeed, it has apparently already been cited in discussions.) I sense the 'issues' with this redirect may really be issues with the essay; in that case, it should be nominated for deletion at WP:MFD, rather than just trying to stop people from linking to it by deleting the redirect. Terraxos (talk) 02:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Arbed → Arcelor[edit]

The result of the debate was closed, Arbed made into separate article. GlassCobra 16:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbed was only one of three companies whose fusion led to the creation of Arcelor, and has a long history worthy of its own article. I suggest deleting Redirect in order to create proper Arbed article with a link to Arcelor.Scotchorama 12:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you have enough verifiable evidence to demonstrate the independent notability of this organization, just be bold and overwrite the redirect with your content. There is no need to remove the redirect from pagehistory in order to make that change. Rossami (talk) 14:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very well... will do. Wasn't sure: I didn't want to create any issue. Thanks!--Scotchorama 14:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2007_November_14&oldid=1085414351"