Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 December 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 2

[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 2, 2009

Fix it again Tony

[edit]
The result of the discussion was Keep. Whether or not this redirect should have been renominated following a Keep result in the previous RfD less than three months ago is at this point irrelevant; that discussion, however, does have some bearing here. It should be noted that both discussions were similar and, if you like, this can be interpreted as a review and endorsement of MZMcBride's closure back then.

A simple numerical count gives 11 keep, nine delete, and one retarget, which at the very least might suggest a no consensus result. Many users favoring deletion expressed valid points, but they can largely be summed up in three ways: Attack, Pointless, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Those wishing to keep the redirect, on the other hand, pointed to Wikipedia:Redirect#Neutrality of redirects, explaining that a redirect that isn't neutral is not subject to deletion the same way an article is. Both keep and delete voters noted a significant numbers of page hits, supporting the usefulness of this page under those guidelines. What's more, a number of reliable sources were cited showing the international usage of the term, a claim delete voters were unable to counter. In short, the arguments for keeping the redirect were consistently based on verifiable facts and strong RfD precedent in response to their opponents' criticisms, while many delete rationales failed to respond to direct scrutiny.

It should also be noted that in no way does this endorse the creation of other, poorly-sourced redirects that have been suggested in violation of WP:POINT. I of course welcome polite questions or comments. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for deletion of this redirect. Nominating Fix it again Tony for deletion. The redirect is a pointless attack on Fiat and falls under WP:Attack page policy. Silly old jokes should not be used for redirect. It's not appropriate to encourage the use of such derogatory terms on Wiki. For example, Found On Road Dead, Biggest Metal Waste etc. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia NOT a jokebook, so please remove. G87 21:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion, but see this discussion. TNXMan 21:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and retarget to Fiat Automobiles#Fiat in the United States, the current location of the content. This is the second time that this has been discussed here and previously at Talk:Fiat Automobiles/Archive 1#Fix it again Tony. As the sources in the target show, this is a widely used term, neither particularly as an attack nor a silly joke. It did start out as a joke but is now widely used in reliable sources often in articles that contrast the previous poor image of Fiat with the present excellent product range. Useful redirect to the target. Bridgeplayer (talk)
Changed redirect accordingly. - RoyBoy 19:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not? Redirects are cheap, and we do not delete them just because somebody finds them useless. Somebody else might find a use for them. Anyway, the fact that this is a joke is discussed in the article. Especially if the redirect is changed to point to the section, I don't see the problem. — Kusma talk 10:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because its not needed, thats why, we dont add useless redirects to other articles either, even then if some article mentions a thing we dont make redirect to those mentions --Typ932 T·C 12:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The community gets to decide what is and isn't useless. Killiondude (talk) 20:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, so you think that it is needed even nobody uses that search term...weird --Typ932 T·C 21:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You might read up on logical fallacies. I don't see anybody but you claiming that "nobody uses" the search term. In any case, there's a "stats" link at the top of this discussion which shows that it is used. The last discussion's "numbers" don't play into this one when the outcome is decided. I'm not sure why you're so bent on getting this deleted, when nobody else sees much of an issue with it. Killiondude (talk) 22:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep those stats are people from this page, its not used any other, think it about on other angle why you and the others here insist keeping this joke so important when nobody really does not need it?? and what comes to the older voting, it was decided wrongly, it was not consensus --Typ932 T·C 22:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, there's a drop down box where you can choose what month's page view stats you're looking at. It is impossible that all the pagehits are from RFD discussions. For the sake of argument, if it is a "joke" it is still a sourced "joke" that makes sense to include in the article. I don't wish to discuss this further, since you seem bound to make pointless comments. Killiondude (talk) 22:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you say it is needed according to those stats?, was the earlier decision a concensus?? Im off this stupid discussion again...you can keep your "concensus" --Typ932 T·C 22:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section has now been reworded appropriately to remove this stupid old Joke. User Typ932 is the only person in this discussion with a sense of normality. Obviously all those above who want to KEEP this inappropriate redirect are biased Americains. I'm sure of that! Hopefully we'll get some input from more sensible folk. G87 20:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I may be biased, but I'm not American. I think the joke is stupid, but that's not a reason not to document it. As I am not American, I don't know how important the joke is for the perception of Fiat in the United States -- if an anti-Italian joke is an important part of it, that needs to be said in the article. It may reflect poorly on the United States, but again: if it's important enough to be said in the article, the phrase can be a redirect. If it isn't important enough for the article, then I don't care. — Kusma talk 10:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    After thinking about it some more and considering where miserable failure points to, perhaps retarget to Backronym#Jokes_and_pejorative_meanings is better than keeping the current target. — Kusma talk 17:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - G87 tried to remove the "Fix it again Tony" line completely from the article, most likely in an attempt to end the need for this redirect discussion. Time Magazine and The Guardian (sourced in the target article) both make mention of the phrase "Fix it again Tony", and I've undone the removal. Killiondude (talk) 20:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. By rewording the article I have made it appear relevant and appropriate for users. As a result, there is no need for this silly joke-redirect. Hopefully it will be an end to this nonsense. G87 20:51, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- it's an ethnic attack. As noted above, we don't have Fix or repair daily, and Found on road dead is not a redir to Ford... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • note - I don't find it that hurtful, as per a mention in the article I wouldn't object in general (not just this case) - such backronyms are often quite well known and worth mentioning. However the redirect is just plain stupid idea..I won't even mention that "jesus killers" redirects to "jew" (JOKE). How about acting all grown up and going for a delete? (but keep mention in article as joke backronym - evidence seems to be that it is sufficiently well known to pass the "I made it up yesterday" test Shortfatlad (talk) 21:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Found on road dead was an improper recreation of a recently deleted redirect and has now been deleted and salted after I tagged it as db-attack. Hans Adler 11:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an obvious attack redirect serving no legitimate purpose. This should normally have been speedily deleted per CSD G10 (see WP:Attack page), but a number of editors have edit warred against the db-attack template. The ethnic component pointed out by SarekOfVulcan makes this even worse than Fix Or Repair Daily, and even that was speedily deleted in May 2006 under CSD A6 (now G10). Hans Adler 21:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have now become aware that two of the editors who removed the db-attack template were actually admins. They did not make it clear in the edit summaries that they were declining the speedy as admins, so I was misled. But in any case according to policy this redirect may be "deleted by any administrator at any time", so an ongoing RfD seems to be an improper argument against the template. Hans Adler 10:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Un likely search term, and as an acronym mis-capitalised anyway. Guy (Help!) 22:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this and other car-related acronyms. If they can be verified and are in common use then they should be documented on WIkipedia. --Biker Biker (talk) 22:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, of course. Redirects are our normal way of "documenting" random tidbits. How silly of me not to think of that. Perhaps we should create Category:Fix it again Tony as well? And a portal of the same name? Hans Adler 23:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, we're off into absurd arguments now. Okay, try this. By deleting this redirect you are directly attacking mechanics called Tony, depriving them of their livelihood and taking food off their table - shame on you. Since Tony is a common name among Italians, you are also being racist - more shame on you. Now this is obviously an absurd argument but it uses the same argument that you are using. I believe the redirect should be deleted because it is a harmless joke, not for supposed attacks. Every car manufacturer gets similar unflattering names. To call them attacks and racism is looking for hate-mongering where there is none.  Stepho  (talk) 00:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that "racist overtones" is absurd. "Tony" is the obvious choice in this joke. It does give it a very slight ethnic component, but definitely not what one could call xenophobic. Let alone racist. Hans Adler 00:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The alleged canvassing hasn't seemed to bias this discussion (it pulled in proponents of both sides) and he's being quiet at the moment. I'd prefer to leave his comments in.  Stepho  (talk) 09:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its only for getting bigger audience to these inside "concensus" discussions, cant see as canvassing. Without proper notices these discussions would not get enough people to discuss these case. Otherwise you could end make 2 people concensus. --Typ932 T·C 11:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think posting to a WikiProject talk page should be seen as canvassing in this case, even if he did express his opinion -- the notice would be as likely to bring in opponents as supporters. Now, if he had posted to WikiProject Italy, that would be another story. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I object to your opinions here. You may see it as canvassing because you vote keep, but as others have noted, I'm simply trying to get a bigger audience as the last discussion had very few people. As for being blocked, that was completely unfair and I'm amazed how some Wiki users get Admin rights. If I could take that further I would but I'm starting to lose faith in the Wiki community. Anyway, back to the issue, the reason I haven't posted in WikiProject Italy is because I know those guys won't be too impressed. G87 17:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please address the argument for deletion? WP:Attack page doesn't have an exception for well sourced attacks. Fix Or Repair Daily and Found on road dead have similarly good sources and have been deleted anyway. [2] [3] Hans Adler 17:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And Fix Or Reapir Daily is well sourced. That gets over 100 hits in GBooks [4] so you think we should create a redirect for that too? G87 17:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Attack page talks about content. WP:Content specifically excludes redirect pages from content. Thus, redirects pages do not come under the attack policy. The FIAT article mentions the term, explains the reasoning (eg rust) and mentions the improvements made by FIAT, so it is obviously not an attack. So, WP:Attack page doesn't apply in this discussion. I also can't see any racism that G87 keeps mentioning - the negativity in the acronym is aimed at the manufacturer for perceived manufacturing faults, not the country of the manufacturer. I can accept his arguments about it being trivial and non-encyclopaedic but his arguments about attacks and racism are complete rubbish.  Stepho  (talk) 22:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My response to that would be some may see it as an attack, some don't, you being the latter. Anyway, we both agree that it is not worthy of a redirect. Also, the FIAT article can explain Fiat's weak previous reputation in US without the inclusion of the joke. If you ask me, it's not necessary to include it in the sentance either. G87 22:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reality check: Here is the first sentence from WP:Attack page (my italics): "An attack page is a Wikipedia article, page, template, category, redirect or image that exists primarily to disparage its subject." Hans Adler 22:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know, the redirect most certainly disparages the subject, so it's definately a WP:Attack page. Why can't some people see this? G87 23:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Y'all are misunderstanding WP:Attack page. We forbid making a page for the purpose of attacking the page's subject. We don't forbid pages about notable attacks. This would be clearer if we had a whole page about the term, rather than just a redirect, but the same principle applies. For an even clearer example, ¿Por qué no te callas? is a page about an attack, an attack on a living person even, but it's not an attack page. Similarly Nigger, Kike, Wop... clearly terms that are attacks, but the pages about them are not attack pages. Same here. --GRuban (talk) 13:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I concur, this problem reminds me of the entire debate over whether Wikipedia should collect "Controversy" and "Critisism of" articles... The term has been used in media, and it thus a likely search term, and at the end of the day will benefit a group of end-users. However, I am unsure I understand the context here, as another editor stated this contained "racist overtones", which I cannot see myself, so perhaps I do not fully understand the context. --Taelus (talk) 14:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks GRuban, this is the first argument against deleting the redirect that makes some sense to me. However, the attack isn't actually notable. It's on the level where we are justified to mention it in another article or two (and we do), but there are no sources that discuss the attack itself. And the redirect is not particularly useful since we can't know whether someone entering the words in the search field is confused and doesn't know which company it refers to, or whether they want to know what this kind of joke is called. Without the redirect the answers to these two questions would be the two first search results. With it, we must make a choice.
And anyway it's silly to create a redirect for every little non-notable fact in an article. Hans Adler 16:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ok well this discussion does not seem to being going anywhere at the moment. If this ends in keep, you will see the creation of redirects such as Fix Or Reapair Daily etc. I really don't want it to come to that, so I hope its removed G87 16:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - not only is it mentioned in the target article, it's an integral part of Fiat's problems in North America more than a quarter century ago. The reliability problems of the 1970s and 1980s provide a contrast to Fiat's awards over the past dozen or so years. In addition, Fiat's acquisition of control of Chrysler (in 2009) makes this topic even more important. Nom wishes to censor negative information in violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policies when all significant aspects should - and must - be presented. Repeated stating of WP:ALLORNOTHING does not help the cause on either side; should the root cause of "Fix or Repair Daily" or "Found on Road Dead" be a significant part of the history of the Ford Corporation (and suitably documented by reliable sources), then similar redirects for those backronyms would be appropriate as well. 147.70.242.43 (talk) 18:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually I think you'll find that I am NOT trying to censor negative info. I'm trying to remove a stupid joke. You obviously have not followed this discussion properly. The joke is not significant to Fiat's history. I believe Fiat's weak pervious US reputation should be mentioned in the article without the use of the joke. It is not appropriate to be included or significant enough to have a redirect. You are clearly using this joke to enhance the negativity. That is not NPOV. G87 19:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • While paying attention to this discussion, I've gotten the feeling that you might have some sort of vested interest in this redirect. Could you comment on that? Apologies if I'm off base. Killiondude (talk) 19:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I wouldn't say so. I am in no way being biased here. Just because most of my contributions are Fiat-related, you'd assume I'm pro-Fiat, but I'm not. In fact, as I mentioned before, I believe its important to have NPOV, so Fiat's weak history should be included. However, this should be done appropriately with no jokes. The joke has been made, by some here, to become an "important topic" and a "significant" part of Fiat's history (quote user (147.70.242.43)) when that is untrue. And yes, it can be referenced, as can Fix Or Repair Daily, but that does not make jokes significant or worthy of redirect. If anything, the people who wish to promote this joke have some sort of personal hatred towards the company. And that violates NPOV policy. G87 20:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Redirects are not included in NPOV policy for names. See Wikipedia:Redirect#Neutrality_of_redirects. Redirects are there to aid navigation by providing plausible search terms. As stated by the redirect policy, non NPOV redirect page titles should simply point to a relevant page which is abiding by NPOV. I still think this redirect is beneficial as citations on the target page show the term has been used by non-Wikipedia groups. --Taelus (talk) 20:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • The fact remains that in two deletion discussions regarding this redirect (the first closed as a "keep", by the way), there has been a stridency on the part of one or two editors who appear oblivious to the reasons to keep it (this includes an attempt to canvass for RfC !votes, as mentioned above). Not once have the pro-delete people mentioned the relevancy of the problems that Fiat had in the North American market (thus triggering the coverage in Newsweek magazine article), and not once have they even acknowledged its significance in light of Fiat's gaining control of Chrysler. I see the same objection raised over and over and nothing about the other issues. As long as this is not addressed, the editor who is trying to "manage" this discussion will not prevail in this discussion. Killiondude, there was a similar vested interest in the first discussion as well (to which, if I remember correctly, I contributed as 147.70.242.54 - note that in the previous discussion, there was a User:G89 involved with comments similar to that of User:G87). On the article's discussion page, I urge simply couching the information on the history of Fiat and mentioning afterwards that in the quarter century after Fiat's disastrous entry into North America, reliability has markedly improved (see Talk:Fiat Automobiles) would improve the article... but nom apparently wants the entire section removed instead (note that if the section remains, so must the redirect). 147.70.242.43 (talk) 20:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Again, I say you haven't been following both discussions carefully. Firstly, there was no User:G89 before, it was me User:G87. Secondly, where have I stated removal of the entire Fiat in the US section?? You clearly appear to have some personal hatred for Fiat which you need to "get over" and be more NPOV. You seem to find it hard to accept that Fiat is very well regarded in Europe. So you feel the need to enhance your hatred towards the company with the use such pathetic jokes?? Your biased views are not helping the discussion. G87 20:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

←G87, you're the only person I'm getting vibes of hatred from. Your language and conduct has effectively shown this. Can't we keep things calm? Killiondude (talk) 21:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ace candy

[edit]
The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect was recently speedily deleted; then an attempt at an article was quickly turned back into a redirect (with one editor claiming it to be a "hoax"). Nowhere is "Ace candy" mentioned in the target. Since the original redirect was deleted without an RfD discussion, it seems that WP:CSD#G4 cannot apply (if I read the template correctly). 147.70.242.54 (talk) 16:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:CSD/Quick reference

[edit]
The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace redirect. Receives little hits according to the page view stats and seems like an obscure search term. — ξxplicit 03:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Norman-238

[edit]
The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible search term, no relation between the term dude and title of redirect. — ξxplicit 03:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

*******, Austria

[edit]
The result of the discussion was Keep ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this vague bowdlerisation of redirect as 7 stars don't give any context for this. The village doesn't use the 7 stars, nor can I find a reliable source that uses them (searches on Ask and Google turn up zero hits). With a similar justification, I also add ****ing, Austria for deletion consideration. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 02:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dr. Peter Johnsen, Provost Bradley University

[edit]
The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the title is a most improbable search item; Johnsen's name is nowhere to be found in target; redirect too old to tag for speedy deletion. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 01:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

F*****

[edit]
The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this nomination in the wake of F--- has the same justifications (Wikipedia is uncensored, redirect is ambiguous, etc.), plus the 5-star variant is even more oblique than the three hyphen variant. In addition, I also nominate the 5-hyphen variant, F-----, for deletion consideration. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 01:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:What The Fuck? Oh My God! Too Many Damn Three Letter Acronyms. ARRRGGGHHH!!!!~!@!~1`2

[edit]
The result of the discussion was Keep ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Short cut" that is not a short cut has been deprecated since mid-2009. There's humour... and there's belabouring a point. This is hardly a search item that even hints at probability of its use (even the template on the redirect page suggests a different shortcut for linkage: WP:WOTTA).

I also nominate the following ultra-long "short cut" for discussion for the same reason, save this one doesn't have a "deprecated" template on it:

147.70.242.54 (talk) 00:35, 2 December 2009 (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/2009_December_2&oldid=1138576569"