Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2006 September 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 1[edit]

Pink elephants painting daisies → love[edit]

The nominated redirect was Deleted. Protected against re-creation. —Centrx→talk • 23:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Voortle 02:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Some kind of joke I assume. Rbraunwa 03:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Srong Delete. This is clear joke redirect due to the fact that the 4th reason stated to delete redirects (from the list near the top of this page) uses this very redirect as an example or deletable redirects. Seams like clear vandalism. Finally, does anyone believe that this may be speedy deleted under G3. --My old username 03:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Speedy) Delete as intentionally useless redirect. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 07:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and protect. If left unprotected, will tend to attract vandalism, just like the weather in London has done. NeonMerlin 19:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, obvious vandalism. Michael 22:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as a self-evident prank (vandalism). I'll add it to my watchlist and help make sure that it stays deleted. Rossami (talk) 22:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

[[%C2%A0]] → Non-breaking space[edit]

The nominated redirect was Kept. -- JLaTondre 23:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Technically correct, however, not a likely search term, because technical features of most software turn it into a regular space. Links from this title are also bad - for an average reader with underlining off, it produces an "easter egg" link with no associated text. --Gavia immer 18:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, unlikely perhaps, but I see it being useful if it tried. I see it as more unlikely that someone would accidently look for it. I know personally I would use this redirect, if it wasn't for my own doubting that such a redirect would exist in the first place. Still, nice to have. --SeizureDog 18:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No real reason to delete (assuming it is the non-breaking space character, which I didn't check.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 06:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I just used this :) Or, probably better, is to redirect the &-n-b-s-p-; page to Non-breaking space — MrDolomite | Talk 19:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

 (disambiguation) → Wikipedia:Disambiguation[edit]

The nominated redirect was Deleted. —Centrx→talk • 00:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cross namespace redirect that is not a likely or useful search term. Note that the first character is a non-breaking space. --Gavia immer 18:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

 eBay → EBay[edit]

The nominated redirect was Deleted. This "test" was started 13 months ago; it's done. —Centrx→talk • 23:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect whose only purpose is to pretty-print the name of the target article. Not only does it not really work, the target has a prominent {{lowercase}} notice, potentially confusing readers if they do use it. Note that the initial character is a non-breaking space. --Gavia immer 18:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nomination. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 07:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; no useful purpose. Owen× ☎ 21:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Michael 22:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems to be a test by two of our more established editors. Has anyone contacted them yet to see if this test is complete? The edit history does show a promise to delete this when their test is done. Unless there is evidence to the contrary, I trust them to keep their word and will give them the benefit of doubt until they're done. Rossami (talk) 22:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

-_Yasir Qadhi → Yasir Qadhi[edit]

The nominated redirect was Deleted. —Centrx→talk • 23:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An extremely unlikely typo. Not a likely search term. --Gavia immer 18:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

±ジャンキー → Puramai Jyankii[edit]

The nominated redirect was Retargted to ± Junkie & kept. -- JLaTondre 23:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect from katakana. Not generally useful to an English-speaking audience. --Gavia immer 18:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why ±ジャンキー was moved to point at Puramai Jyankii. It's actually supposed to lead to ± Junkie. Anyways, both are alternate titles which is covered as acceptable for redirects. They are quite useful, to me at least, because trying to find an article when all you have is the kanji/kana name or a different styled romaji name is a real pain. There's different ways of translating a title and many times one doesn't know how the article creator went about it. And as always, redirects are cheap. --SeizureDog 18:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The RFD is now at Puramai Jyankii → ± Junkie. I don't know why it changed but it may be because ±ジャンキー redirect target was changed due to being a double redirect and now links to ± Junkie. This was after the RFD notice was placed. Due to this it is no longer up for deletion. I think that since the current RFD is not the same as it was when this started and the redirect up for deletion was originally the target that this should be closed and restarted at a latter time if the nominator still wants ±ジャンキー deleted as a redirect. --My old username 06:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedia:Pettifoggery → Wikipedia:WikiLawyering[edit]

The nominated redirect was Deleted. -- JLaTondre 23:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yet Another side effect of the target page being repeatedly moved without consensus. See Wikilawyering → Wikipedia:WikiLawyering and Wikipedia:WikiCaviling → Wikipedia:WikiLawyering below for more discussion of these. --Gavia immer 17:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the redirect. (1) This was created after the original maker of the page Wikipedia:WikiLawyering was advised of the fact that the use of the term lawyer in connection with the practices explicitly deprecated in the project page could be construed as defaming a segment of society, and after some discussion changed the name of the article as above. (2) There is a strong possibility that the name will eventually be changed back to the above, after further discussion, or arbitration if necessary. (3) Whatever the outcome of the above dispute, the term pettifoggery or pettifogging presently appears as an alternate term on the page itself, and so this is a valid redirect that many people may prefer to use for linking the page in lieu of the more offensive term, no matter what else happens. Jon Awbrey 17:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The term "pettifoggery" should not appear on the page. The definition at Wiktionary:pettifoggery does not resemble the term used here. For example, you (JA) are clearly Wikipedia:WikiLawyering, but not committing Wiktionary:pettifoggery. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment nothing in JA's essay contradicts my statement. If Fred wants to misuse "pettifoggery", using a definition not appearing elsewhere in Wikipedia or Wikitionary, why should we support him? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 12:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JA: I'm sorry that Wiktionary is still as WikiPrimitive as it is, but a good dictionary does confirm this sense of the word. There are also any number of terms of art from debating lingo and informal logic that would do as well, without resorting to offensive cultural connotations on a par with WikiAmbulanceChasing, WikiShystering, etc. Jon Awbrey 13:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Essay by JA[edit]

JA: By way of setting the record straight about who did what and when, I copy these exchanges from my talk page:

Alleged WP:POINT Violation
Jon, stop recreating WP:Pettifoggery. This is a clear disruption of Wikipedia to make a point. If you recreate this redirect you will be blocked for disruption. Thanks, Gwernol 01:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
JA: Gwernol, if you investigate far enough to look at the page in question, at least as it was the last time I looked at it, the term pettifoggery is used on the page as a synonym for the concept in question. This term was introduced by Fred Bauder, who I am informed is a lawyer and created the page in the first place. So this is without a doubt a valid redirect. Jon Awbrey 01:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
JA: To continue. And had you taken the trouble to investigate the situations a little further before making the trouble of accusing me of a WP:POINT violation, you might have discovered that it was Fred Bauder who changed the name of the article in queston to Wikipedia:Pettifoggery (now deceased), to be precise, at this point:


JA: As a result, any redirect that anybody might make after the renaming operation is a perfectly valid use of the redirect tool, no matter how many subsequent re-name-callings might occur. Jon Awbrey 17:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
JA: Gwernol, you may of course apologize at your earliest convenience. Jon Awbrey 02:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Bauer did not add that to the WikiLawyering article it was added a couple of days ago by an anonymous IP (read the history). Fred's move of the page was against consensus and promptly reverted, just as your creation of the redirect was against consensus. You added the redirect as part of your campaign against the WikiLawyering policy, a campaign that has already earned you a block. Continue with it and you will be blocked further. Gwernol 02:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Data

  1. JA: "This term was introduced by Fred Bauder, who I am informed is a lawyer and created the page in the first place."
    1. Fred Bauder creates page — 21:21, 8 November 2005; Fred Bauder.
    2. Fred Bauder is a lawyer (retired) — See User:Fred Bauder.
    3. Fred Bauder introduced the term Pettifoggery by changing the name of the page to WP:Pettifoggery — 11:40, 30 August 2006, Fred Bauder, "(moved Wikipedia:WikiLawyering to Wikipedia:Pettifoggery: This is what this is about, not good faith lawyering)".
    4. I think that the title of a page counts as one its parts.
    5. WP:Consensus is a guideline, not a policy.
      1. Consensus does not exist on that page because at least two people disagree with the current name of the page.
      2. Even if there were consensus, which there is not, the consensus of any number of WP editors does not supersede its non-negotiable policies, in this case WP:NPOV.


JA: If a subject matter expert, not to mention a member of the defamed segment of society, says that Pettifoggery is the more correct term, who do think you are to correct him?
JA: In any case, the term remains as an alternate usage on the page, and so this remains a valid redirect. Jon Awbrey 02:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JA: Yes, I am ashamed that AR and I can find nothing better to do with our time than dispute a no-brainer redirect, but that seems to be what WP does to people. Jon Awbrey 02:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

01000001 → A, etc.[edit]

The nominated redirect was Deleted. -- JLaTondre 23:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

also

01011010 → Z
01011001 → Y
01011000 → X
01010111 → W
01010110 → V
01010101 → U
01010100 → T
01010011 → S
01010010 → R
01010001 → Q
01010000 → P
01001111 → O
01001110 → N
01001101 → M
01001100 → L
01001011 → K
01001010 → J
01001001 → I
01000111 → G
01000110 → F
01000101 → E
01000100 → D
01000011 → C
01000010 → B
Assumes symbols are binary, and that it represents an ASCII character, rather than a number. Generally wrong (and he missed H). — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Redirects from random bitstrings are not likely to be usable.--Gavia immer 17:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, it's kinda interesting though. Is there an article that gives binary codes of letters ?--SeizureDog 18:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as not correct redirects. feydey 13:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Barnaked Ladies Are Men → Barenaked Ladies Are Me[edit]

The nominated redirect was Deleted by DakotaKahn. -- JLaTondre 21:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made a typo when I created the page - Barnaked for Barenaked. Unlikely for anyone to use this redirect. TheHYPO 10:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speeedy Delete as G7. I'll add the tag for you. --My old username 03:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

User:MaxDZ8::parallax_mapping_proto → User:MaxDZ8/parallax_mapping_proto[edit]

The nominated redirect was Deleted (G6). -- JLaTondre 21:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page moved per help desk discussion, the user created the page in the wrong place not realising how to mae subpages. This is now a random user page that acts as a redirect and has no purpose. I doubt the user will ever register (VERY long and odd name)!! Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 11:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

HACK/slash → .hack[edit]

The nominated redirect was No longer a redirect. -- JLaTondre 23:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

.hack is a fantasy manga about MMORPGs, while HACK/slash is a horror comic. Ragdoll 14:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just create a stub then?--SeizureDog 18:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly the redirect creator was heavily confused. Though hack&slash has its own meaning, it's probably the capitalization which caused confusion (both HACK/slash and .hack//SIGN use this obscure way). Stub already existed - restored. Suggest to speedy close the issue. I'll add disambiguation. Also needs categorization... is anyone familiar with comics cats? CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 01:36, 3 September 2006 (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/2006_September_1&oldid=616542335"