Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2006 November 27
November 27[edit]
WP:NUKE → Wikipedia:Deletion policy[edit]
The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre 12:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
This is a bit of an unorthodox listing. The redirect has been deleted, but there is still some disagreement about its existence and so it is appropriate to list it for discussion here. There is discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_policy#New_shortcut.3F and at [[Talk:WP:NUKE]] regarding this shortcut, though I'm sure the four parties involved up to now will be reiterating their positions here. BigNate37(T) 16:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as it has the potential to bite people whose content is being deleted. We had similar redirects deleted for speedy deletion templates, like {{crap}} used to redirect to one of the db templates. {{useless}} used to link to some template that said the article needed a picture, if I recall. Those were deleted for their antagonistic connotations. I see a problem with this shortcut in the negative connotations to the word nuke and the potential for editors to have their work threatened to be WP:NUKED, which in the text medium can be easily mistaken for incivility or hostility where none is intended. Granted, the word has seen use in bulletin and message boards as a synonym for delete, but not everyone here will see it the same way as it is not common here. The BBS environment is often more hostile than would be tolerated at Wikipedia. BigNate37(T) 16:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment WP:BITE seems to apply only to newbies, could it (WP:NUKE) also bite more experienced users, too? (if it bites all the newbies it's bad enough, if it also bites experienced fellas then the case against it is really, really tough) And remember -- how the word is used is important -- especially if it's used in a threat. And someone could also say "I'll WP:NUKE all your junk" (run your pointer over the link and you'll see it is piped), so the shortcut need not exist to be used "wrongly". 170.215.83.4 20:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete this inflammatory redirect. It is in use on only 3 pages (with the other pages of what links here showing discussions about the redirect). From everything that I can tell, all actual use of this proposed redirect traces back to a single anonymous user who I believe to be trolling.
Disclaimer: Per the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#New shortcut? and based on the comment made by SMcCandlish who apparently thought he/she was recreating a deleted link when no such link had ever previously existed, I speedy-deleted the redirect. I restored it at BigNate37's request to support this discussion. Rossami (talk) 19:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC) - Comment & Questions I'm the one who started using the link, and would really not care too much if it is deleted. However, since some of the posts I made containing it have been archived, it might be kept for "historical reasons" with a disclaimer on it that this is all it should be for (would it be OK to modify archives in this case to remove the shortcut links? Esp. with the glaring "DO NOT EDIT" boilerplate on top). Furthermore, are we really sure that it is this offensive? Have a significant number of people been offended by it (ie. it's proven offensive)? Or are you just hypothesizing that it is/can be offensive without any actual proof? Also, couldn't the usage determine whether or not it is offensive -- for example "here on the Deletion Policy, at WP:NUKE it says ..." VS "Shut up and quit doing tat or I'll WP:NUKE all your crap!" The former might not be offensive, whereas the latter is very likely to be so. If this is the case, then the shortcut itself is relatively neutral. However, if a lot of people get offended simply by seeing the word, then it's probably too offensive and should either be deleted or clearly marked "historical" and "discouraged". In other words, we need some evidence that it's really as bad as some have claimed. If a lot of people have actually been offended by it then I suggest to delete it (Get it? WP:NUKE WP:NUKE!), otherwise keep even if only for historical purposes. 170.215.83.4 20:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per BigNate37 and Rossami; name may cause unnecessary friction. Dar-Ape 22:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- What evidence is there that it will do that? What we need proof of is that it is likely to cause offense to ("bite") both newbies and experienced users alike even when used in good faith. "In good faith" means that it is not being used to attack or disparage someone or other "malicious" behavior, but simply as a casual, legit reference like "On WP:NUKE there is this...", etc.. These are important questions that I've brought up that those here have yet to respond to. These questions are the ones that decide whether or not WP:NUKE should be kept or deleted. Like I've said, I offer a conditional: Delete WP:NUKE or keep it only as a historical piece with clear warning in order to avoid redlinks in talk archives, if it's proven to be able to cause offense even when used in good faith and calm discussion, otherwise keep as a regular redirect. I would definitely like some answers to the questions and points I've raised here. 170.215.83.4 23:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Why risk it? Even if it only fanned the flames of a discussion once, this is once too many. With neutral redirects WP:DP, WP:DEL, and WP:DELETE, there is no reason to have another one with the possibility of making it difficult for users to keep their cool after they realized they've just had their article NUKEd, even if this realization comes as they're redirected from WP:NUKE. Additionally, very few redlinks will be created, and these can be fixed quickly. Dar-Ape 06:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- So it's OK, then to edit archives in spite of the "DO NOT EDIT" warnings in order to fix redlinks? So you are saying then that it's better not to risk it? What I was asking though, was a little more specific than your answer was -- can it offend even if used in good faith and not as part of an attack or other uncivil behavior? Ie. without malice intended -- as if something is only offensive when malice is behind it, the thing that's the problem is the malice. And can it bite experienced users as well as newbies? I'd also like to see some evidence/explanation as to why it would, too. If there is a YES to one or both then definitely either delete WP:NUKE or relegate it to a "historical" page to avoid redlinking with clear warnings not to use it. So, I'd like answers to those more specific questions simply because they are more "to the point": moving into the realm of objective facts instead of subjective things like "I *think* it might offend...", "maybe it can bite...", etc. instead of "it *definitely* is capable of offending and biting newbies and even without malice and in GF", etc. It gets rid of a lot of the "wiggle room" and allows for a hard decision. 74.38.35.238 07:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- The point is it is not needed, not being used, and a few editors have expressed opinions they feel it could offend. Proof that it will not offend in good faith is impossible. Proof that it has offended is also not necessary in general on Wikipedia. If we feel something has the potential to do harm and the benefits from having it are not significant, we don't need scientific proof of that position. As far as the archives go, I don't think it matters—fix the links or leave them—the one page I examined seems to have context enough that the redlink shortcut is no mystery there. In fact, there was a lot of discussion there around the shortcut itself. I don't think it's any injustice to remove them though, just be clear in your edit summary as to what you are doing. BigNate37(T) 16:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- So it's mostly because it's unnecessary then as plenty of shortcuts already exist, even if most people wouldn't be offended if used IGF/don't think it's offensive/etc. How about proof/evidence that it _could_ offend even if used In Good Faith (IGF), though (you said proof that it will _not_ offend IGF is impossible, but this is a query for proof/evidence of the positive not the negative)? If so, what is it? Even evidence that it _might_ cause offense is sufficient to wrap this up for me. I want evidence of the positive, not the negative, as you made a positive claim -- namely that it may offend. Do most of the people here feel it could be offended? Could you give me an *example* of where it *might* offend even if used IGF? This brings up another question -- if the shortcut is simply unnecessary, why bother having multiple shortcuts in the first place? 74.38.35.238 23:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- For proof of the positive, the shortcut would need to see popular usage, which means that if we decide to delete it later, everyone's already using it. But you say an example, evidence that it might cause offense if sufficient. Well, some of us feel the very term is offensive despite (or perhaps because of) its usage on message boards, which are often the venue for flame wars and heated arguements. If that's not enough, I'm sorry—I don't want to contrive a hypothetical scenario. As far as the one shortcut idea goes, it's a stretch and off-topic, so I won't be touching that one (others are free to of course, but the discussion is best held elsewhere). BigNate37(T) 02:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation. I was sort of suspecting this, due to most of the contexts I saw it used in, they were generally "negative", ie. "mercilessly nuked", "file was accidentally nuked", etc. Now, the last question: could it bite experienced users as well as newbies? If it bites only newbies that's bad enough, but if it can bite long-time WP vets then it really sucks. Just for "more weight", that's all. 74.38.35.238 04:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- For proof of the positive, the shortcut would need to see popular usage, which means that if we decide to delete it later, everyone's already using it. But you say an example, evidence that it might cause offense if sufficient. Well, some of us feel the very term is offensive despite (or perhaps because of) its usage on message boards, which are often the venue for flame wars and heated arguements. If that's not enough, I'm sorry—I don't want to contrive a hypothetical scenario. As far as the one shortcut idea goes, it's a stretch and off-topic, so I won't be touching that one (others are free to of course, but the discussion is best held elsewhere). BigNate37(T) 02:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- So it's mostly because it's unnecessary then as plenty of shortcuts already exist, even if most people wouldn't be offended if used IGF/don't think it's offensive/etc. How about proof/evidence that it _could_ offend even if used In Good Faith (IGF), though (you said proof that it will _not_ offend IGF is impossible, but this is a query for proof/evidence of the positive not the negative)? If so, what is it? Even evidence that it _might_ cause offense is sufficient to wrap this up for me. I want evidence of the positive, not the negative, as you made a positive claim -- namely that it may offend. Do most of the people here feel it could be offended? Could you give me an *example* of where it *might* offend even if used IGF? This brings up another question -- if the shortcut is simply unnecessary, why bother having multiple shortcuts in the first place? 74.38.35.238 23:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- The point is it is not needed, not being used, and a few editors have expressed opinions they feel it could offend. Proof that it will not offend in good faith is impossible. Proof that it has offended is also not necessary in general on Wikipedia. If we feel something has the potential to do harm and the benefits from having it are not significant, we don't need scientific proof of that position. As far as the archives go, I don't think it matters—fix the links or leave them—the one page I examined seems to have context enough that the redlink shortcut is no mystery there. In fact, there was a lot of discussion there around the shortcut itself. I don't think it's any injustice to remove them though, just be clear in your edit summary as to what you are doing. BigNate37(T) 16:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- So it's OK, then to edit archives in spite of the "DO NOT EDIT" warnings in order to fix redlinks? So you are saying then that it's better not to risk it? What I was asking though, was a little more specific than your answer was -- can it offend even if used in good faith and not as part of an attack or other uncivil behavior? Ie. without malice intended -- as if something is only offensive when malice is behind it, the thing that's the problem is the malice. And can it bite experienced users as well as newbies? I'd also like to see some evidence/explanation as to why it would, too. If there is a YES to one or both then definitely either delete WP:NUKE or relegate it to a "historical" page to avoid redlinking with clear warnings not to use it. So, I'd like answers to those more specific questions simply because they are more "to the point": moving into the realm of objective facts instead of subjective things like "I *think* it might offend...", "maybe it can bite...", etc. instead of "it *definitely* is capable of offending and biting newbies and even without malice and in GF", etc. It gets rid of a lot of the "wiggle room" and allows for a hard decision. 74.38.35.238 07:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Why risk it? Even if it only fanned the flames of a discussion once, this is once too many. With neutral redirects WP:DP, WP:DEL, and WP:DELETE, there is no reason to have another one with the possibility of making it difficult for users to keep their cool after they realized they've just had their article NUKEd, even if this realization comes as they're redirected from WP:NUKE. Additionally, very few redlinks will be created, and these can be fixed quickly. Dar-Ape 06:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Savannah (Cat) → Savannah (cat)[edit]
The result of the debate was Kept. -- JLaTondre 12:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
The article is now at the correct Savannah (cat), I don't think a redirect for the incorrect capitalization is needed anymore Finiteyoda 02:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- I tagged it as {{R from other capitalisation}}. No harm in leaving it there, in my opinion, so I'd vote to keep. BigNate37(T) 16:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per BigNate37. Danny Lilithborne 03:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per BigNate37. Tommy11111 04:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Hockanum, Massachusetts → Hockanum Rural Historic District[edit]
The result of the debate was Deleted as db-redirnone. -- JLaTondre 15:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Target article does not exist, I created it before I knew the policy --Elipongo 04:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.New Order of Celestial Bodies → 2006 definition of planet[edit]
The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre 13:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Unlikely search term (who refers to the 'order of celestial bodies'?), orphan, target article is linked in a great many places. Michaelbusch 03:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete. Originally created as an article by someone using the POV that the redefinition was bad. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)