Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 February 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 25[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 25, 2019.

Wikipedia:MAJORDICK[edit]

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. (non-admin closure) B dash (talk) 07:34, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is an unlikely search term for a Wikipedia essay. There are other redirects associated with this essay which could stand being submitted to RfD that are also unlikely but I'll start with this one because I really don't think anyone will search for "MAJORDICK". The page has received 2 views over 30 days both of which were me. Liz Read! Talk! 00:47, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - No reason to keep. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:39, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there are several incomming links we have no reason to break, it gets used sporadically, it's a plausible term for the target and there are no competing uses. The existence of other redirects is completely irrelevant. Thryduulf (talk) 16:58, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I really don't think anyone will search for "MAJORDICK"; shortcuts are not created for searching but rather for linking. That aside, I do not find this implausible given the nature and title of the essay. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 02:47, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as valid as well as harmless redirect. –Davey2010Talk 19:04, 1 March 2019 (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.

List of polymaths[edit]

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:28, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect used to be an article, but was redirected to its current target after a deletion discussion concluded that the article should not exist. But there is no content in the target that even remotely resembles the redirect title, and the discussion didn't really detail why it is here other than it is a "plausible search term". But the article lacks the content the title implies. So this redirect is misleading and incorrect. This redirect should be deleted and maybe salted or retargeted somewhere else.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  22:26, 25 February 2019 (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.

Superfluous or missing brackets[edit]

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 per the consensus below. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:15, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Unlikely search terms and no doubt created in error. Not useful. PC78 (talk) 22:23, 25 February 2019 (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.

Mexican-style rice[edit]

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. -- Tavix (talk) 17:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Please see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 March 3#Mexican rice. Per that discussion, this nominated redirect was deleted. (Mexican rice was not deleted.) Thus, I tagged this redirect with {{Db-g4}} when I discovered its existence, but [ the speedy request was declined]. The rationale I had in the previous discussion still applies: In addition, the use of the word "style" is vague per the previous discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 22:38, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep per the comments on the previous RfD that this description is used for this dish by Californians (and presumably other Americans) who associate it with Mexican food. Thryduulf (talk) 20:48, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as used as synonym for Mexican rice and Spanish rice. [1] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 20:01, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - per my comments in the previous discussion, I still think this article is not sure which dish it's actually about, as it goes to some pain to clarify that "Spanish rice" is not eaten in Spain, but also describes the Spanish (as in, from Spain) recipe for Spanish rice, later clarifying that that separate preparation may refer to paella, which is not the same as Mexican rice, which the rest of the article is actually about. I still think that unless this article can be linked to a specific notable dish (such as arroz rojo or, say, arroz moro) and is not just a catch-all for generic fried rice prepared inside Mexico, then it should be deleted. The purpose of the redirect is unclear until that situation is resolved. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:46, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a note, as I closed the previous discussion, this was indeed a "no consensus" close, so the decline of the speedy was correct. I don't have a real opinion, except to quote myself: I think the real problem stems from the fact that Americans are not exactly consistent in referring to food from/related to other cultures. In that regard, I agree with Ivanvector that the article is the issue (if not USAmerican society), and I don't think further discussions at RfD are likely to be helpful. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:58, 4 March 2019 (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.

Coagulated milk curd[edit]

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 retarget to Curd. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is confusing. Apparently, the phrase "coagulated milk" refers to Curd, but Curd is present in more products than just Cheese. Due to the ambiguity, I don't think the current target is correct, but I'm not sure if it would be more helpful to "retarget to Curd" (though the phrase is a bit redundant) or "delete". Steel1943 (talk) 18:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 19:20, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to curd, which is actually a fulsome article about cheese curds. Other substances can form from curdled milk (see curdling) but cheese is the one that is a desirable end product. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:49, 25 February 2019 (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.

Spanish Federation of Underwater Activities[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 March 4#Spanish Federation of Underwater Activities

Romantic (architecture)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 March 5#Romantic (architecture)

Pokemon Global Link[edit]

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 retarget to Gameplay of Pokémon. Since the issue is that Pokémon Global Link is not just limited to Black and White, retargeting to a general Pokémon article in which it is mentioned seems to resolve that. I will also retarget Pokémon Global Link for the same reason. -- Tavix (talk) 17:46, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect does not make sense (rule 5). Pokemon Global Link is a separate service that has connectivity features with Pokemon Black and White, but it also has connectivity features with other games with their own Wikipedia articles such as Pokemon X and Y, Pokemon Omega Ruby and Alpha Sapphire and Sun and Moon and Pokemon Ultra Sun and Moon. Connectivity features with the Pokemon Global Link can also often differ between Pokemon games, so a redirect to Pokemon Black and White does not make sense. Clovermoss (talk) 22:43, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • The redirect was made as this was a new feature, only available so far in this one game. If you think another page explains it better, feel free to select one. Unless you think it should just be deleted as realistically, looking at the pageviews tool, almost nobody searches for this term. Blake (Talk·Edits) 23:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Blake: It was the first game to use the Pokémon Global Link, but not the only one. I think the main reason the redirect should be done away with though has to do with the functionality no longer working with Pokémon Black and White itself.[1][2] Clovermoss (talk) 01:48, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Blake: However, functionality with other Pokémon titles does still work. One of these games is Pokémon Sun and Moon.[3] On the low chance someone does search for Pokemon Global Link, they're likely interested in the functionality that still works with the more recent Pokémon titles, so I think the redirect should be at the very least be deleted from Pokémon Black and White. Clovermoss (talk) 01:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Stirling, Colette. "Pokémon X & Y Global Link Opens October, Will Spell The End For Black & White". My Nintendo News. Retrieved 15 February 2019.
  2. ^ Tach, Dave. "Pokemon Global Link ending for Pokemon Black, White, Black 2 and White 2 in Jan. 2014". Polygon. Retrieved 15 February 2019.
  3. ^ "How to use Game Sync". IGN. Retrieved 15 February 2019.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 18:58, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This situation reminds me of Vault-Tec Assisted Targeting System, another game mechanic which redirects to a section of the game in which it was introduced (Fallout 3). It appeared in later games, but AFAIK this is the only place it's discussed in detail. Raymond1922 (talk) 05:08, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Gameplay of Pokémon. I don't know anything about this, but per the content at the suggested pages, that seems to have the most information. As to this being still closely connected with black and white, I'll note that the Gameplay article includes references to this being first introduced in B&W. Not sure which section, but Pokémon abilities is the first mention and Mystery Gift is the second. Connectivity probably makes the most sense, but it's not currently mentioned there. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:21, 5 March 2019 (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.

French Federation of Undersea Studies and Sports[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 March 4#French Federation of Undersea Studies and Sports

Belvoir Castle Railway[edit]

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. See also Tramway ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:54, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pure WP:OR, by the look of it. Not called this in connected sources. Qwirkle (talk) 18:30, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please check de:Belvoir Castle Railway for references first and feel then free to rename the redirect more appropriately. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 19:26, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
While that does suggest one good source for this, it also strongly suggests that the German version is heavily sourced to blogshite-level sources, and reduplication of good cites. The name in better cites seems to be tramway...or even wagonway. Qwirkle (talk) 19:51, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Qwirkle: Please absolutely avoid foul language such as "blogshite" when talking to me. I will not tolerate being shouted at. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 20:05, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is an simple fix for this (personal) problem, you can stop sourcing to bad sources. Meanwhile, would you care to defend your (personal) choice of sources? Qwirkle (talk) 20:12, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On this OS map it is shown as a "tramway", thus Belvoir Castle tramway → Grantham Canal#Belvoir tramway might be a better redirect. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 20:40, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

However, this reputable source calls it "Belvoir Castle railway" on page(s 58 and) 59. Therefore, no further action required. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 20:51, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - in North America, a transport corridor which would properly and functionally be called a tramway in other parts of the world would likely be called a railway, since we have about 700 different words for a divided controlled-access high-speed roadway but prohibitively few for any form of non-private-vehicle transport. The redirect gets readers to the subject they're most likely to be searching for, in any case. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:54, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, no. Leaving aside the the War on Cars soapboxing for a moment, a thing called a tramway in some other parts of the world might have once been called a street railway in others, but more likely it would now be called “the streetcar system” (or “... line”), with the latter words usually left understood.
Getting back to the soapboxing, this is a remarkably inapt example to use as an example of “non-private-vehicle transport”, no? Two miles of private coal haulage. Qwirkle (talk) 01:05, 26 February 2019 (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.

Wikipedia:Requests for Arrrrrbitration[edit]

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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:45, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind in-jokes, but this one doesn't make sense in present-day parlance; it's not even called "Requests for Arbitration" anymore. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:29, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I'll take you to Wikipedia:Arrrrrbitration/Requests then. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:50, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but be forewarned that the Arrrrrbitration Clerrrrrrks might format your report Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:55, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - if the arrrrbitration committee doesn't make you walk the plank, you get your doubloons back. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:08, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems harmless to keep this solely for its (scant) existing uses. If you simply must have WP:Arrrrrbitration/Requests, please hold off until September. —Cryptic 20:54, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't foresee any use of it. — kashmīrī TALK 18:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as harmless. Thryduulf (talk) 17:00, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, highly useful once per year. —Kusma (t·c) 09:47, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No harm in this one. A Dolphin (squeek?) 16:23, 1 March 2019 (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.

Wikipedia:ANNIE[edit]

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. (non-admin closure) — Godsy (TALKCONT) 03:22, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:
If there's anything we should be deleting, it's that. Natureium (talk) 18:17, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
With you on that 100%, Natureium ——SerialNumber54129 18:41, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Nothing wrong with the redirect but I don't expect much use of it. — kashmīrī TALK 18:22, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep redirects are cheap. RfDs are not quite so cheap. Lepricavark (talk) 21:07, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Davey2010, Leprivavark, SoWhy, Tavix, and the consensus of the last discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 17:02, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Appears to be a valid redirect. Nominator did not provide a valid deletion rationale. SQLQuery me! 19:25, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A Dolphin (squeek?) 16:23, 1 March 2019 (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.

Wikipedia:WHOEVERSMELTITDEALTIT[edit]

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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:45, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a valid redirect; violates redirect guidelines and purposes. Softlavender (talk) 03:17, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Most of these redirects are plausible jokes, but this one is just stupid. Natureium (talk) 04:02, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yeah, this one’s dumb. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:34, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this one. The others largely amount to complaints about how miserable a place ANI is; this is instead targeted at people who bring issues there. If it's meant to be meta-commentary on how quick the regulars are to raise WP:BOOMERANGs, it falls flat. —Cryptic 04:40, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Robert McClenon (talk) 06:47, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @TonyBallioni: re: your "this one's dumb"—it was actually requeggested by one Obapinia regalis of this parish [2]; secondly, as the "good faith creator" of this redirect, why, O Softlavender, did you not alert me as to this discussion per Rule? ——SerialNumber54129 12:40, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Heh, add it to the long list of things I disagree with OR on ;) TonyBallioni (talk) 13:01, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per this discussion [3] and the nomination being a WP:AADD ("various policies and guidelines"). ——SerialNumber54129 12:43, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. OK, this is a bit of a joke to old hands but it's not great for newer users. AN/I (whatever its flaws) is a place for users to raise conduct concerns and/or where issues regarding their conduct will be discussed. We need those bringing valid issues to AN/I to have confidence it it, and those who are validly reported for their behaviour at the noticeboard to take it seriously. I have no objections to reform/replacement of AN/I but until that happens, we should not "officially" denigrate one of our main dispute resolution forums. WJBscribe (talk) 13:16, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per rationale presented in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 November 18#Wikipedia:Gorillas consuming gerbils Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:53, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - we can do better — Ched :  ?  — 15:20, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's probably better off targeting Wikipedia:Don't shoot yourself in the foot, but it seems too puerile to be worth it. -- Tavix (talk) 15:21, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as sounds childish (well more than the rest I guess) but meh not bothered if kept or deleted. –Davey2010Talk 16:37, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Wikipedia:The duck test. Have you ever smelled a duck? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:06, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've got an album by Fuzzy Duck if that counts. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:55, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete dumb and useless. Who needs to tyoe this instead of the short title Legacypac (talk) 00:04, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete childish. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:12, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Legacypac. — kashmīrī TALK
  • Meh I could do without it, but I could also have done without all the other unnecessary RfDs. Lepricavark (talk) 21:06, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Appears to be a valid redirect. No valid rationale given - what guidelines or purposes were violated? SQLQuery me! 19:24, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Way too childish. A Dolphin (squeek?) 16:22, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Unnecessary, unlikely, and inappropriate. Senator2029 “Talk” 19:13, 2 March 2019 (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.

Wikipedia:Slough of Despond[edit]

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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:49, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a valid redirect; violates redirect guidelines and purposes. Softlavender (talk) 03:16, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Robert McClenon (talk) 06:47, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Humour is allowed. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:28, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per this discussion [4]. ——SerialNumber54129 12:45, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. OK, this is a bit of a joke to old hands but it's not great for newer users. AN/I (whatever its flaws) is a place for users to raise conduct concerns and/or where issues regarding their conduct will be discussed. We need those bringing valid issues to AN/I to have confidence it it, and those who are validly reported for their behaviour at the noticeboard to take it seriously. I have no objections to reform/replacement of AN/I but until that happens, we should not "officially" denigrate one of our main dispute resolution forums. WJBscribe (talk) 13:16, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral It was a silly joke of mine. If people don't like jokes in the encyclopedia, fine. It looks like the nominator has found User:Ritchie333/Euphemisms and is going through the whole lot one by one to eradiate all traces of humour because Wikipedia is very serious and we are all terrifically important. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:51, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ritchie333: I hope not, that would constitute WP:STALKING  :) ——SerialNumber54129 14:01, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It would constitute WP:HOUNDING if Ritchie feels that his enjoyment of working on the encyclopedia is being deliberately impeded. WP:STALKING is deprecated and should not be used. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:05, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WJBscribe. -- Tavix (talk) 14:14, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Slough of Despond is another great alternative description, IDONTLIKEIT isn't a valid reason to delete. –Davey2010Talk 16:41, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I admit I had to look this one up, but it doesn't seem to have anything to do with users coming together to resolve disagreements. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:05, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep good grief! Lepricavark (talk) 21:02, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Davey2010 and Galobtter. Thryduulf (talk) 17:03, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Appears to be a valid redirect. No valid rationale was given. What guidelines and/or purposes were violated? SQLQuery me! 19:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yare yare daze. Keep the humorous redirects. A Dolphin (squeek?) 16:01, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Oh, come on :-). Miniapolis 00:16, 2 March 2019 (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.

Wikipedia:Room101[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 March 4#Wikipedia:Room101

Wikipedia:POPCORN[edit]

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. (non-admin closure) — Godsy (TALKCONT) 03:23, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a valid redirect; violates redirect guidelines and purposes. Softlavender (talk) 03:14, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Robert McClenon (talk) 06:47, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Nominator has failed to specify what guidelines the redirect fails to satisfy. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:54, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Humour is allowed. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:28, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per this discussion [5] and Galobtter. ——SerialNumber54129 12:46, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per rationale presented in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 November 18#Wikipedia:Gorillas consuming gerbils Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:53, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One of the more popular ones. — Ched :  ?  — 15:23, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Another ridiculous nomination, Another great description, Again lighten up eh. –Davey2010Talk 16:44, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:POLEMIC - references a meme intended to ridicule the participants in a discussion. If I saw anyone using this, I might just assume they're meaning to inflame a debate or start fights, and may block them for disruptive editing on that basis. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:24, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ivanvector's reasoning Legacypac (talk) 00:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ivanvector. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:06, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Enjoying popcorn while watching unfolding ANI dramas is one of my favourite WP pastimes. Handy shortcuts to express this feeling are welcome and indeed necessary. Also, they do not violate any policy, even if Ivanvector may wish to trace them back to some obscure cartoon of the past. — kashmīrī TALK 18:09, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, useful. If you read ANI without popcorn you're doing it wrong. —Kusma (t·c) 19:22, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep no reason for us to be having this discussion. Lepricavark (talk) 21:07, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all the above keeps. The nominator's WP:VAGUEWAVE attempt to disguise the WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not successful as this doesn't seem to violate any policies or guidelines that actually exist. Thryduulf (talk) 17:08, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Appears to be a valid redirect. No mention made of what guidelines and purposes are being violated. SQLQuery me! 19:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A Dolphin (squeek?) 16:20, 1 March 2019 (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.

Wikipedia:PITCHFORKS[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 March 4#Wikipedia:PITCHFORKS

Wikipedia:HAPPYPLACE[edit]

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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:36, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:
  • Delete. Not a valid redirect; violates redirect polices and guidelines. Softlavender (talk) 03:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as humour, and quite possibly my favourite redirect on the project. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:47, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Utterly harmless fun. Nominator has not cited the supposed policies and guidelines that make this unacceptable—if they exist, they are likely to be of the sort that can safely be ignored. In the two years since the last attempt at ensuring Wikipedia is absolutely free of comedy, fun or joviality, precisely no evidence of harm or problem has stemmed from this. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:09, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Robert McClenon (talk) 06:47, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We're a HAPPYPLACE, where fun is allowed. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:28, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tom Morris. Just claiming "violates redirect polices and guidelines" is not a substitution for actually explaining which policies and guidelines are supposedly being violated. Regards SoWhy 11:04, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per vague hand wave towards invalidity and guideine violation. ——SerialNumber54129 12:50, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tom Morris. If I filed an AfD saying nothing besides "violates policies and guidelines" I'd be laughed out of the room. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:53, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Wikipedia:Department of Fun. Naturally, this should redirect to a place that is actually happy. The current target would be a WP:SURPRISE for someone looking for a happy place. -- Tavix (talk) 23:27, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, yes making this a WP:SURPRISE is the entire point of the joke, and that ALLCAPS is about mainspace, not preventing Easter eggs for regulars to laugh at in project space. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:39, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I’d rather not. WP: redirects like this are used by individual users on user/user talk pages where they can’t exactly be re-edited. If someone has made a comment like “That edit of mine is being picked over by the regulars at the WP:HAPPYPLACE”, it’d not make much sense for that comment to now be pointed to somewhere like Wikipedia:Department of Fun, because the Department of Fun isn’t ANI, thus the comment makes not a jot of sense. Humourlessness is bad enough, but humourlessness that begets confusion would be about the worst possible outcome. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:36, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as another ridiculous nomination!, Lighten up. –Davey2010Talk 16:48, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:FANCRUFT - the target is not a project page about McDonalds, nor about Canada after 17 October 2018. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:11, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Or retarget per Tavix's very good suggestion. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:24, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Tavix's target. Nothing happy about ANi Legacypac (talk) 00:13, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, there's always hope :) Also, per 54129. —Kusma (t·c) 19:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep no real reason to delete. Lepricavark (talk) 20:56, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tom Morris and Trout the nominator. Thryduulf (talk) 17:10, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Appears to be a valid redirect. What policies are being violated? SQLQuery me! 19:22, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Complete opposite of what it redirects to is, but in the name of good humor, keep the redirect. A Dolphin (squeek?) 16:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Wikipedia:Department of Fun per Tavix. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 03:27, 4 March 2019 (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.

Wikipedia:Great Dismal Swamp[edit]

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. (non-admin closure) — Godsy (TALKCONT) 03:23, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a valid redirect. Softlavender (talk) 03:12, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Robert McClenon (talk) 06:47, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, has a history of seven years, is well understood, and used on more than 100 hundred pages which would all become senseless without the connection. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:21, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: no valid reason for deletion has been given by the nominator. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:52, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Humour is allowed. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:28, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tom Morris and Gerda Arendt. Just claiming "violates redirect polices and guidelines" is not a substitution for actually explaining which policies and guidelines are supposedly being violated. Regards SoWhy 11:05, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per vague hand wave towards invalidity and guideine violation. ——SerialNumber54129 12:55, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. OK, this is a bit of a joke to old hands but it's not great for newer users. AN/I (whatever its flaws) is a place for users to raise conduct concerns and/or where issues regarding their conduct will be discussed. We need those bringing valid issues to AN/I to have confidence it it, and those who are validly reported for their behaviour at the noticeboard to take it seriously. I have no objections to reform/replacement of AN/I but until that happens, we should not "officially" denigrate one of our main dispute resolution forums. WJBscribe (talk) 13:16, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see "denigrate". The reference is to the Great Dismal Swamp maroons (which was made a Good article while its author was blocked). To nominate that for deletion discussion during Black history month leaves me rather speechless. You can read some of the discussion(s) leading to it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:22, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps start reading "An overall concern about AN and ANI" by Newyorkbrad. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:25, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WJBscribe. -- Tavix (talk) 14:14, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While I respect WJBscribe's views, anyone having a legitimate conduct complaint would not think of typing "WP:Great Dismal Swamp" to get there. It might be an in-joke, but those not in on the joke will not find it, so in that respect it is harmless. See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 November 18#Wikipedia:Gorillas consuming gerbils Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:28, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ritchie. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:02, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ritchie (and I also have a great deal of respect for WJBscribe and his work - just disagree with him on this particular issue) — Ched :  ?  — 15:07, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ritchie - Humour is allowed you know..., Again lighten up. –Davey2010Talk 16:49, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Gerda. I also recognise that WJBscribe's opinion is valid, but I simply disagree with it in this case. The old hands need looking after as well. --RexxS (talk) 16:54, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - too close to a Commander-In-Cheeto reference for my liking. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:59, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is an actual place unrelated to any snack foods. Natureium (talk) 18:29, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Washington DC or delete. Redirects should not surprise you. Legacypac (talk) 00:12, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The Great Dismal Swamp is a real place, no reason to confuse people. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:11, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for just coming from there. It is utterly real. Purgy (talk) 13:10, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is a term that has been used for ANI on many occasions. Lepricavark (talk) 20:55, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Gerda. As well, new uses are unlikely to encounter the joke. Old users can tolerate and may even need the occasional, lighten-up. Littleolive oil (talk) 02:56, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Gerda Arendt and Tom Morris. Thryduulf (talk) 17:11, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Appears to be a valid redirect. SQLQuery me! 19:21, 27 February 2019 (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.

Wikipedia:AIRINGOFGRIEVANCES[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 March 4#Wikipedia:AIRINGOFGRIEVANCES

Wikipedia:Dramaboard[edit]

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 Snow keep. There is an overwhelming consensus below that this redirect is appropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 17:13, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Violates various policies and guidelines. Softlavender (talk) 03:09, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a widely used euphemism on wikipedia. Natureium (talk) 04:03, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question: If it violates various policies and guidelines, can we at least be told what some of them policies and guidelines are? Otherwise this looks like a speedy keep as we normally expect the nominating user to point out at least one specifc policy or guieline being violated. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:23, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you. If not speedy closed, several nominations on this page could be grouped since they have the same target. Killiondude (talk) 05:29, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there reason to delete this but not WP:Drama board? —Cryptic 04:27, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Humour is allowed; would break many many links. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:28, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Good grief! Agathoclea (talk) 10:12, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Galobtter. Just claiming "violates redirect polices and guidelines" is not a substitution for actually explaining which policies and guidelines are supposedly being violated. Regards SoWhy 11:06, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per vague hand wave towards invalidity and guideine violation: "various policies and guidelines"??? ——SerialNumber54129 12:52, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. OK, this is a bit of a joke to old hands but it's not great for newer users. AN/I (whatever its flaws) is a place for users to raise conduct concerns and/or where issues regarding their conduct will be discussed. We need those bringing valid issues to AN/I to have confidence it it, and those who are validly reported for their behaviour at the noticeboard to take it seriously. I have no objections to reform/replacement of AN/I but until that happens, we should not "officially" denigrate one of our main dispute resolution forums. WJBscribe (talk) 13:16, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well known link, widely used (cf: Wikipedia:Ignore all dramas). Although not a policy or guideline, I would be upset if we deleted any of the late great Shock Brigade Harvester Boris' work. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:50, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sadly - this pretty much sums it up on many days. — Ched :  ?  — 15:11, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - another great description of ANI and another ridiculous nomination, Keep. –Davey2010Talk 16:52, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added WP:Drama board to this nomination. Retarget both to Wikipedia:Ignore all dramas, per Wikipedia:Ignore all dramas. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not going to bold this, but "dramaboard" could refer to many different boards, so maybe a disambig would be appropriate? ;) ansh666 19:56, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If it were going to go back to being a dab, Jimbotalk should definitely be included, as well as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Theatre. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:58, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, interesting. Perhaps that's a better idea than I made it out to be. ansh666 01:19, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dab it that wouod be better Legacypac (talk) 00:08, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - WTHN? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:08, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - What policy is being violated? SQLQuery me! 04:50, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep per almost everyone above (and I assume below). — kashmīrī TALK 18:01, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, descriptive and useful. —Kusma (t·c) 19:24, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it sure was nice of Softlavender to waste a bunch of time with these pointless RfDs. Too bad he didn't have the time to tell us what policies and guidelines were actually being violated. Lepricavark (talk) 20:50, 26 February 2019 (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.

Wikipedia:MORDOR[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 March 4#Wikipedia:MORDOR

Wikipedia:CESSPIT[edit]

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. Although I do think WJBscribe's point is something worth considering. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:38, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seriously people, this is absurd and violates all kinds of policies and guidelines. Softlavender (talk) 02:46, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - Really ? dumbest redirect I've ever seen. - FlightTime (open channel) 03:06, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@FlightTime: I take it you haven't come across Wikipedia:Gorillas consuming gerbils? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:48, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it's a joke, and I think this is one of the more frequently used ones. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:49, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nominator has failed to specify what policies and guidelines it supposedly violates. WP:R#DELETE doesn't seem to contain "attempt at project-space humour" as valid reason for deletion, perhaps because there are far more important things to be worrying about. About the best argument that can be made for this and the flotilla of other nominations of ANI redirects is calling ANI a cesspit or whatnot is not neutral, but that's a bit of a stretch. Neutrality is about article content, not about internal Wikipedia processes. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:17, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Robert McClenon (talk) 06:47, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm really curious - what policy deals with project-space humor? Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:24, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tom Morris. Regards SoWhy 11:07, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. OK, this is a bit of a joke to old hands but it's not great for newer users. AN/I (whatever its flaws) is a place for users to raise conduct concerns and/or where issues regarding their conduct will be discussed. We need those bringing valid issues to AN/I to have confidence it it, and those who are validly reported for their behaviour at the noticeboard to take it seriously. I have no objections to reform/replacement of AN/I but until that happens, we should not "officially" denigrate one of our main dispute resolution forums. WJBscribe (talk) 12:14, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the nom's WP:VAGUEWAVE towards "policies and guidelines", and specifically—if only by ommission—this was discussed (and not deleted) last year. ——SerialNumber54129 12:54, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WJBscribe. -- Tavix (talk) 14:14, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per rationale presented in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 November 18#Wikipedia:Gorillas consuming gerbils Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:53, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I'm not married to it - but Tom M. makes convincing argument. — Ched :  ?  — 15:14, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Probably the most ridiculous RFD to date! - Cesspit perfectly describes ANI and given it's more or less described as such everywhere I see no reason to delete it and no IDONTLIKEIT isn't a reason, Lighten up eh. –Davey2010Talk 16:31, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - guys, the fact that the central discussion forum for user disagreements is a cesspit is one of Wikipedia's major problems. We should not be encouraging this. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:52, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • One wonders how deleting midly humourous redirects is supposed to improve ANI. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:39, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete useless and not funny because it is somewhat true. Legacypac (talk) 00:06, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep' Per Tony, SN54129, Tom, and others. Sheesh. SQLQuery me! 04:47, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Agree that newcomers might find it somewhat offending, but we shouldn't always be so politcially correct and should be sometimes allowed to call things by their names. — kashmīrī TALK 18:17, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, descriptive and useful. —Kusma (t·c) 19:20, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per everything that Davey2010 said. ANI is a cesspit. Also, the nom needs to provide an actual reason for deletion. Simply saying that it violates "all kinds of policies and guidelines" is not enough. Lepricavark (talk) 20:40, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similar to others commenting here and in sibling discussions, I'm confused why we're allowing Softlavender to create so many distinct and very weak deletion discussions. This feels borderline disruptive to me. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:11, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per everyone above. I debated closing this one as a snow keep, but decided I'd rather endorse the comments, especially those by Davey2010, Tom Morris, Serial Number 54129, Galobtter, and MZcBride. Thryduulf (talk) 17:19, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Peanut gallery keep. A Dolphin (squeek?) 16:19, 1 March 2019 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_February_25&oldid=1140357097"