Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 March 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 13[edit]

Wikipedia:DRAMA → Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents[edit]

The result of the discussion was retarget to Wikipedia:Drama. (NAC) Tavix (talk) 22:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfDs for this article:

While this is mildly entertaining for experienced contributors like my good self (!), it's a bit inappropriate, and while it probably doesn't encourage drama, the admins' noticeboard should be a place where open discussion can take place harmlessly and fairly - and labelling it DRAMA is a bit unfair to all those who use it properly, I feel. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 17:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, obviously. Whilst regulars may like their "in jokes" this simply encourages the trivialisation (and yes, the drama potential) of wikipedia. We are a serious project. Further this intuitively should be a redirect to something theatre related.--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I have no opinion of whether it should stay at the current target or not but if there is a consensus that it should not target to WP:ANI Wikipedia:WikiProject Theatre would be a logical alternative target. --70.24.178.195 (talk) 18:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I should have also mentioned earlier that that the idea was discussed in the last RFD but there was no consensus to do so at that time. That was last May so there may be a stronger consensus now than there was at that time but more discussion is needed to see if there is a consensus at this time. --70.24.178.195 (talk) 18:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, people need a sense of humor. Plus, if anything, seeing it reminds me to tone down the rhetoric and try to contribute constructively to discussion at AN/I (lest drama actually ensue). —Locke Cole • t • c 20:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Wikipedia:Drama, to avoid the problem of two different forms of capitalisation resulting in different links. There are already well known shortcuts for AN/I (WP:ANI and WP:AN/I and this doesn't appear to be needed. Existing links to it can be changed. —Snigbrook 00:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No real comment about the RFD, but I would be hesitant about using AWB to change what people wrote as a result of this RFD per "do not modify other's talk page comments". –xeno (talk) 17:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a fair point, I hadn't thought of that. However, I'm sure that people would want the link to point to the place they intended it, so perhaps a small appendage like
    (this link originally pointed to WP:DRAMA, which has now been retargeted).
    ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 18:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either that or just pipe it so that WP:DRAMA is still the displayed text. –xeno (talk) 18:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's assuming that WP:DRAMA is the displayed text to start with, and that it isn't piped already. It could look like this, for instance. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 18:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, but in my experience people use WP:DRAMA for the lulzy visual effect. piping something else in there would be silly as typing WP:ANI saves you two keystrokes =] If they had their own piped statement then a simply retargeting without commentary should be fine. –xeno (talk) 18:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Wikipedia:Drama per above.--92.251.142.16 (talk) 17:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Wikipedia:Drama. This is actually confusing. I don't get it why WP:Drama redirects there and not also Wikipedia:DRAMA. Honestly, this is inappropriate for this to be redirected to AN/I. Versus22 talk 05:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Regardless of whether or not it's 'appropriate', this redirect is fairly widely used as a humorous shortcut to AN/I - see Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:DRAMA. Deleting or retargeting it would render all those historical incoming links somewhat inexplicable. On a different note, it's deeply ironic that this redirect seems to have produced so much drama itself... in this case, the best way to reduce drama would be to stop nominating it for deletion. Robofish (talk) 01:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I admit I hadn't read the discussion above, where the issue of incoming links was brought up, and TreasuryTag volunteered to change them. In that case, I'd be fine with retargeting to Wikipedia:Drama. Robofish (talk) 01:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget Asapplied to Wikipedia , it's too limiting--there are many other notable places in the project. DGG (talk) 04:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

User:Mjquin id/Barbara Chandler → User:Mjquin id/Sandbox/Barbara Chandler[edit]

The result of the discussion was Redirect was speedy deleted (WP:CSD#G7) as requested by author. —Snigbrook 00:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moved article into sandbox, no reason for a redirect (by author) Mjquin_id (talk) 17:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

UESR → European Union[edit]

The result of the discussion was Re-targeted to RAO UES. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently this is meant to stand for "Union of European Socialist Republics"! I'd list it for speedy deletion but it's been around since last summer. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 14:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as notable slang--Open24HrsMotorwayStop (talk) 14:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to RAO UES, which appears to be the primary meaning according to Google News. "Union of European Socialist Republics" looks like it's only a neologism. —Snigbrook 15:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to RAO UES. There are several sources to testify that this is a significant abbreviation. Whether or not "Union of European Socialist Republics" is notable slang I don't see anyone searching on UESR when they want the EU! TerriersFan (talk) 19:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This was kind of what I was thinking. If "Union of European Socialist Republics" is notable someone can go write an article on it's usage, but using UESR as a redirect to the European Union article makes little or not sense. I've changed the redirect to RAO UES. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 09:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Levi Johnston → Sarah Palin#Personal life[edit]

The result of the discussion was Deleted. Johnston is not mentioned in the current target & consensus that article's talk page is that he shouldn't be. While an alternative target was proposed, the mention there is minor. This is the perfect use of the search box vs. a redirect. -- JLaTondre (talk) 22:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Levi Johnston is no longer mentioned in the Sarah Palin article. There's no reason for his name to redirect to her any more. Delete. Mike R (talk) 13:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note, if the mention of Mr. Johnston in Public image of Sarah Palin#Teen pregnancy appears likely to stick, then I support retargeting the redirect there rather than deleting. Mike R (talk) 19:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but change the redirect to go to Public image of Sarah Palin#Teen pregnancy. The relationship between Johnston and Bristol Palin has had some effect on Sarah Palin's public image, as is noted in this article from the Chicago Tribune. To delete the redirect entirely would leave us with no entry of any kind for someone who has 12.6 million Google hits and is therefore a quite probable target for search by some readers. We should give those readers something more than a red link. JamesMLane t c 17:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If he's not notable enough to mention in the article (which he's not), then there is no point in a redirect. Wikipedia is not a gossip rag. Ucanlookitup (talk) 02:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Levi Johnston has received extensive coverage in the media which continues to this day. I don't see any policy reason for the deletion, and I'm not sure why he isn't mentioned in any article.   Will Beback  talk  03:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems we have never had an article about him. Care to write it? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't see anything about him in there. Versus22 talk 06:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no point in having a redirect when he is not mentioned in the article. TerriersFan (talk) 18:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. He's now received further coverage in the mainstream media in stories that focus on the impact on Palin's image ([1], [2]). I've updated the relevant section in the "image" article, which is where I suggest the redirect should go. JamesMLane t c 19:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This seems like a reasonable term people would be searching for when looking up information about Sarah Palin and her family. AniMatetalk 00:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • To expand my rationale: a search for Levi Johnston is more than reasonable. "Jesus ponies"... while hilarious, doesn't seem reasonable. "Jesus ponies" would be a term used to disparage Palin and her possible belief in Creationism. There's nothing I can see that is disparaging to Paliln about having the name of her grandson's father serve as a redirect to her article. AniMatetalk 01:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Offtopic: Where did that "jesus ponies" meme start, anyway? Did anyone ever really call dinosaurs "Jesus ponies?" Mike R (talk) 19:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Offtopic response: I've seen an image of Jesus riding on the back of a dinosaur. I think (not sure) that it was intended seriously, i.e., the work of a Creationist who thinks the world is only a few thousand years old, and was depicting what (in his or her view) might have happened. My guess is that the phrase "Jesus ponies" was coined by believers in evolution, to deride the Creationist version of Christianity. JamesMLane t c 21:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete When a topic is not even mentioned in an article, using a redirect to get to that article is useless. If the argument is that someone will search for him, then we could use the same argument to have "Jesus ponies" (which I assure everyone is a term used with reference to Palin) redirect to the Palin article. WP is not in the business of thinking of every possible search term, and where the person does not merit a mention in an article, he does not merit a redirect either when he is in no article. Collect (talk) 00:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I agree, we don't try to think of "every possible search term". But "Levi Johnston" gets more than 3 million hits, while "Jesus ponies" gets only 9,590 hits (most of which aren't even about Palin). There's objective reason to believe that "Levi Johnston" will be searched far more often than "Jesus ponies". JamesMLane t c 07:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Johnston is not related to Sarah Palin. His only connection to her is through her daughter Bristol (and by extension, Tripp). Neither Bristol nor Tripp have articles of their own, and while a redirect to either of those articles would be appropriate, their non-existence does not create an imperative to link to Sarah Palin's bio or the article about her campaign. The issue is addressed in the campaign article (without mentioning Johnston's name); the redirect serves little purpose and would seem to violate WP:BLP1E. (In this case, the one event is the pregnancy; everything else proceeds from that event). Horologium (talk) 00:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically WP:BLP1E says:
"Take particular care when considering whether inclusion of the names of private, living individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value. The presumption in favor of the privacy of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved persons without independent notability is correspondingly stronger." That seems to directly apply. Ucanlookitup (talk) 01:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Correction, I see that JamesMLane reworded the campaign article to include Johnston's name; while this was under discussion at Talk:Sarah Palin, his name did not appear in the article. Horologium (talk) 00:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant redirect to Public image of Sarah Palin#Teen pregnancy. While I don't normally like redirects like this, I feel obliged to keep this one as long as his name is mentioned in the above article (which it currently is). The unfortunate fact is that plenty of people will be searching for this, and if we refer to him by name anywhere, that's where they should be sent. I'd rather see his name removed from Wikipedia completely, but as long as we mention it, the redirect should be kept. Robofish (talk) 01:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If his name were to be removed (it did not appear in the article before yesterday), would you support deleting the redirect? It's simple enough to revert the edit which added his name... Horologium (talk) 07:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I note the insertion of his name via [3] by a person who by some odd coincidence seems to be promoting keeping this redirect. I would surmise that he felt by adding the name where it had not been that he was strenthening his argument instead of weakening it severely. Collect (talk) 11:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
James mentioned above that he did, nothing odd about it. --Amalthea 13:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Johnston's name appeared in the main Palin bio article until a couple months ago, when it was removed, apparently without any prior discussion on the talk page. It would be simple enough to revert that edit. The solution apparently preferred by Amalthea and Grundle2600 -- keep the redirect as is and mention Johnston in the main bio article -- was the one in place for quite some time. I considered restoring the mention to the main Palin bio, but I thought that the image article (not the campaign article and not the main bio) was a better place. JamesMLane t c 19:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly the fact that the baby was born made a comment on pregnancy a bit outdated? I did not know that discussion on a talk page was a prerequisite for a birth, I guess it is? Collect (talk) 19:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a reasonable search term, the pregnancy of the daughter was a big enough issue to mention it somewhere, and the redirect should point there.
    I'm not particularly happy with pointing it to the "Public image" article though, at first glance I find the details of the pregnancy a bit misplaced there and would much rather mention the first grandchild's father in the "Personal Life" section (i.e., the "Family" section) of her bio. --Amalthea 13:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in the Sarah Palin article because of this: According to a September 1, 2008 article in the New York Post, Johnston had stated on his myspace page, which has since been taken down, "I don't want kids." The same article also quoted Johnston's myspace page as saying, "I'm a f - - -in' redneck... Ya f - - - with me I'll kick [your] ass." <ref>[http://www.nypost.com/seven/09012008/news/nationalnews/palin_admits_her_17_year_old_daughter_is_127025.htm Palin admits her 17-year-old daugher is pregnant], New York Post, September 1, 2008</ref> Grundle2600 (talk) 17:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Eh? How is that a relevant argument for keeping this redirect? That material does not appear in the Sarah Palin article (or anywhere else on Wikipedia, for that matter). Robofish (talk) 18:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • ... and it would be very much misplaced in her article, too. --Amalthea 18:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think it's just really funny and it should be somewhere at wikipedia. Maybe Levi Johnston could be its own article. Anyone who's been mentioned in the national media as much as he has should be mentioned at wikipedia. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • really funny—You are looking in the wrong place. Try Uncyclopedia instead. Wikipedia is for grown-ups. Horologium (talk) 17:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Before it could even be considered for inclusion anywhere, it would have to be verified. I vaguely recall that, after the initial publicity, it turned out that the MySpace page in Johnston's name was actually created by some friends of his as a joke. Even assuming it to be his real page, I don't see how it adds anything to the reader's understanding of Sarah Palin. It might conceivably relate to her image, if it fueled an impression that she was party to pushing a shotgun wedding, but any such connection would have to be sourced. I'd say that inclusion of this little tidbit must await the creation of the standalone Levi Johnston article. JamesMLane t c 06:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if only to prevent a creation of an article which will no doubt occur if deleted. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's not on the Palin article, so how could it redirect there? Anyone arguing for keep who talks about it being in the Palin article should have their vote discounted. Try to vote with reason and not political and emotional knee jerks.LedRush (talk) 15:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability is not temporary. Redirect to the section regarding the teen pregnancy, if any. JustGettingItRight (talk) 22:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per notability used. --ApprenticeFan Messages Work 23:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

List of animals that explode → Exploding animal[edit]

The result of the discussion was No consensus so defaults to keep. -- JLaTondre (talk) 22:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing links here (aside from a few old discussions), nothing will, and nobody is ever going to use this as a search term. This exists because of a very old "exploding animals" meme in Wikipedia's early(ish) days, culminating in this example of Wikipedia discussion at its finest (those who look back to the pre-Siegenthaler Golden Age of Wikipedia should have a good read of that discussion). However, there's no reason to keep this other than as a relic of Wikipedia's history.  – iridescent 08:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • "List_of_animals_that_explode has been viewed 16 times in 200902." –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Almost certainly people following the link from the WT:CSD archive rather than people actually searching for it. Even were someone to be looking for information on the subject, I can see no circumstances where "list of animals that explode" would be the search term used as opposed to "animals that explode" or "exploding animals". – iridescent 14:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as harmless, and a redirect that is in use per above (how they come to click on it shouldn't matter). –xeno (talk) 17:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; I see no particular reason to delete and since it is mentioned in archived discussions it seems sensible to keep it as an audit trail. TerriersFan (talk) 19:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The link in the CSD archive was to a now-deleted article of this name, not the redirect which was subsequently created. – iridescent 12:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Exploding animal doesn't contain a list. Tavix (talk) 23:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom (almost no incoming links, unlikely search term) and just update the two incoming links from the Signpost and CSD archives. A search for "List of animals that explode" will bring up Exploding animal as the #1 result. –Black Falcon (Talk) 22:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Shitter → Toilet[edit]

The result of the discussion was Keep, There's no strong consensus to disambiguate but I think it can be boldly done. Lenticel (talk) 11:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Shitter' currently redirects to 'toilet'. Whilst this is accepted slang, 'shitter' may also quite equally refer to the anus or rectum itself. I think that since it has not just one meaning, it's worth discussing the purpose of this redirecting page. Thanks. Open24HrsMotorwayStop (talk) 01:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep pointed at current target. Perhaps a hat, but then profanity would be at the top of the toilet article, and while Wikipedia is not censored, profanity at the top of the toilet seems inappropriate. Alternatively, a dab page could be put in its place. –xeno (talk) 17:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - A bit inappropriate, but it doesn't really bother me to have it redirected there. Versus22 talk 05:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Common slang. — neuro(talk) 21:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per neuro and WP:NOTCENSORED. — Ched ~ (yes?)/© 03:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Agree that profanity should be avoided when better terms are available however. — Ched ~ (yes?)/© 03:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should be a dab Shitter could mean toilet or outhouse - at least in parts of the US the latter is the more common usage. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep commonly used slang. -Senseless!... says you, says me 19:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'd post a rationale, but I have to use the shitter. Tavix (talk) 23:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Common slang as per above. —Nn123645 (talk) 00:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_March_13&oldid=1142587992"