Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2006 September 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 12[edit]

The nominated redirect was Speedy Redirect back to Jargon File per discussion RN 20:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Microsloth → Analysis of Microsoft[edit]

Yet another rediculous attack redirect. "Microsloth Windows" is in the jargon file, but then someone keeps redirecting this back to analysis of microsoft... RN 19:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep - This redirect does not, nor has it ever gone to Microsoft - it redirects to Analysis of Microsoft. I don't understand RN's motives in claiming that someone keeps redirecting this back to microsoft as this is patently untrue. Nfitz 19:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whoops, changed; thanks. RN 19:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah ... I see. I accidently changed it, when I reverted my erroneous change! How about we just redirect it back to Jargon File, and remove this entire discussion and RFD pending the outcome of the other ones. Nfitz 19:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If the nominator agrees to redirect to Jargon File, I'll consider this a speedy keep. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Micro$loth → Microsoft[edit]

The nominated redirect was Deleted. -- JLaTondre 01:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is hideous :\. It is not a Alternative political spelling of Microsoft, instead it is an attack PLUS an Alternative political spelling :). Reccommend speedy nuking :). RN 17:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  1. They have a potentially useful page history.
    • no.
  2. They would aid accidental linking and make the creation of duplicate articles less likely.
    • no. Someone is just going to type in Microsoft. Really :).
  3. They aid searches on certain terms.
    • This is actually a reason AGAINST this ridiculous redirect in this case as it goes for the google bomb attempt. That is, if this were; which it isn't, really.
  4. You risk breaking external or internal links by deleting the redirect.
    • No, only this discussion points to it
  5. Someone finds them useful.
    • maybe, and probably the only one. But then, it is a ridiculous attack direct.
  6. The redirect is to a plural form or to a singular form.
    • no

So, one maybe... not exactly "several of the reasons" that is claimed. The fact that it is in that wikipedia article means nothing; nearly all those other nicknames are redlinks, probably for a good reason. RN 18:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'd argue that it could break external links; I haven't checked for them - but I don't believe you have either. But the prime reason is that the link has been around forever, removing them clearly violates Therefore consider the deletion only of either really harmful redirects or of very recent ones.? which you conveniently failed to quote, this redirect is neither recent, nor "very harmful".
    • More to the point Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Precedents#Should insulting nickname redirects be kept? has set clear precedents on what "insulting nicknames" should be deleted, and what should be kept. This one definitely falls on the keep side.Nfitz 19:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Evidence of "common usage"? RN 20:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well that's tought to document, with the $, as it does screw up searches. It's a play on microsloth and micro$oft. It's been listed on Wikipedia in the Nickname article without issue for almost a year. Nfitz 20:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Delete. It's not common, it's not understandable (pointing to Microsoft), and it is going. Microsloth is plausible, although I've never actually seen it, and Micro$oft is fairly common, but this one is not even plausible. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Weak Delete for now - a relatively recent spelling, not sure about the origin. First wrote "Delete", but, then, 91,900 ghits mean it's still used. But I've never seen this one as an exclusive spelling in a community, unlike M$ or Windoze. Redirecting to Jargon would be fine. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 23:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Personally I'm slowly teetering away from Keep. Unless the Keep is done the guideline "It's harmless and old", I don't see any reason to keep this, given that Microsloth is still around; on the assumption that deleting this, based on it not being that common or logical, doesn't prejudice a discussion a future discussion on Microsloth (which I assume would follow wherever the Windoze discussion goes). Nfitz 23:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per A. Rubin. Pavel Vozenilek 18:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Wqeic → Wyggeston and Queen Elizabeth I College[edit]

The nominated redirect was Kept. -- JLaTondre 01:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely unlikely redirect. Gavia immer (u|t|c) 14:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ben Schoen → Mugglenet.com[edit]

The nominated redirect was Kept. Google search of www.mugglenet.com[1] backs up that he is part of Mugglenet. Does no harm and discourages another article. -- JLaTondre 01:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged as speedy. Deleted article on subject says he is on the staff of Mugglenet, but not mentioned in that article JPD (talk) 11:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete And speedily too. A pointless and apparently incorrect redirect from a deleted page. Marcus22 08:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

H.R. 2795, the Patent Reform Act of 2005 → Patent Reform Act of 2005[edit]

The nominated redirect was Kept. -- JLaTondre 01:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Completing incomplete nomination by User:68.39.174.238. Not likely, but keep: redirects are cheap. TimBentley (talk) 04:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • No one is going to type this in, there is no page history, and nothing links to it, so delete it. —Centrx→talk • 02:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - redirects are cheap; it's been there a full year now, if you search this as a phrase on Google you do get hits - someone could likely cut and paste this into Wikipedia. Nfitz 03:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I usually create a redirect when after searching wikipedia for an expression (found in a web site, newsletter, case law decision or anywhere else) I don't find any exact match, while a Wikipedia article on the subject does exist under another title. In this case, I usually think, "if I typed this in, someone else may type this in as well". It is probably why I created this redirect back in October last year. Redirects are the definitive preemptive cure to avoid having two articles on the same topic. Redirects are important and cheap indeed. --Edcolins 09:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and tag as {{R from alternate name}}. BigNate37(T) 17:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Meeresbodenpfledge → Reef Blower[edit]

The nominated redirect was Deleted. -- JLaTondre 01:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Completing incomplete nomination by User:AMK152. What is the precedent for redirects from foreign languages? TimBentley (talk) 04:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The precedent is to usually keep foreign proper names (especially if the foreign version is the original, like the original title of a novel or the local name of a place) and tag them with {{R from alternate language}}. In this case, however, the name is misspelled (should be Meeresbodenpflege), and misspelled German titles of individual SpongeBob episodes make highly uncommon search terms. Delete. Kusma (討論) 07:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

John E. Warren → John E. Warren, Jr.[edit]

The nominated redirect was Converted to disambig. -- JLaTondre 11:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion with John E. Warren, the St. Paul, MN mayor Jwillbur 01:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • How about creating a disambiguation page instead? Nfitz 03:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Windoze → Microsoft Windows[edit]

The nominated redirect was Kept. 2,380,000 google hits so it passes the Dubya test. Retargeting to Jargon file is not appropriate as anyone using this term is looking for Windows and not the Jargon file. -- JLaTondre 01:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since we seem to be deleting [2] 'Winblows' and 'Linsux' and so on, this should go too. -- «klaus»

  • I assume then that you're OK with keeping 'Linsux' and 'open sores' should redirect to the jargon file as well? -- «klaus»
    • No. I can't find 'Linsux' at dictionary.com, I'm not that familiar with it's usage, so someone more familiar with it, would have to argue it's cause ... and I have no idea what 'open sores' refers to. Nfitz 18:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, it's in the Urban Dictionary [3], so I take it that's enough for you? -- «klaus»
      • No ... you might trust that as a source, but I think it is crap! But why are we discussing this here? Nfitz 19:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just redirected it to the jargon file to avoid having yet another redirect deletion discussion. Same goes for the ugly Microsloth. The only reason I nominated the ones below is that they don't even have a jargon file entry (although linsux is used as a slang example, but that is prob. not enough). Windoze has its own entry; really though, given the history behind this term, it should probably have its own article. As long as this doesn't point to anything microsoft/windows-related... RN 17:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So just nuke them - as you say they are 'attack' entries. What's the point on them even existing? This is not the jargon file, it's supposed to be an NPOV encyclopedia. My only point is that "M$" and "Windoze" and "Winblows" and "Microshaft" and so on exist not because they are valuable components of the jargon file (as if) but because of the anti-Microsoft culture that permeates WP. It's childish and inane to say the least. Childish, all of it - including 'Linsux' and 'Open sores', etc. They should all go. -- «klaus»
    • That is true; I searched through mac redirects of several mac articles and couldn't find a single pejoritive one, and I only found three for linux (two below+one political spelling). There were of TON (like FIFTY) of Windows/Microsoft ones; because I didn't want to go through yet another 50-comment microsh*t discussion I came up with "creative" solutions for a lot of the nonsense like Bill Gates tax :). RN 17:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anyway, let us delete this for now. Maybe some point down the line someone thinks of a real article to make; but redirecting every slang to jargon file really is a hack... RN 17:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed to EXTREME DELETE if it is going to point to windows. RN 18:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - hang on everyone. I just looked at the history of Windoze. Until yesterday it was redirected to Windows, however someone changed it to redirect elsewhere. It already passed an RFD previously, so I don't see how we are having this discussion again. The decision was documented on Talk:Windoze as was the custom at the time. It seems to make more sense to move the redirect back to where it has been for 2 years, and where it passed a previous RFD discussion, rather than be discussing it's recent move to the wrong page! I've moved the redirect. Nfitz 18:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • One keep and one weak keep - now there's a "discussion". Have at it then, obviously you feel threatened by this change for some reason. -- «klaus»
    • "it's not a blatant derogatory term and deleting it is POV." - that is a rather flawed discussion considering it is an OBVIOUS derogatory term (no matter how "widespread") and deleting it would NOT be POV as we don't have any of these rediculous redirects pointing to other OSes... RN 18:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nfitz keeps changing this back to MS Windows; so I guess we'll take it from that then.... RN 18:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's because that is because that is where it was redirected to, from 2004 until yesterday. That is where it already passed a RFD. Nfitz 18:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • With two comments from a year and a half ago :). RN 18:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes. Original poster proposed it for deletion, and the only votes after were Keep. No need for large-scale voting, as no-one agreed with the original poster. Nfitz 19:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this RFD violates several of the reasons not to remove redirects listed in Wikipedia:Redirect#When should we delete a redirect?.Nfitz
  • Please point out which of those reasons are being "violated". Indeed, from that list I can't find anything that would apply to this redirect other than maybe you find it useful? Also, how is the fact that it's been there since 2004 relevant? If I find an error in an article am I supposed to leave it be because it's been there for more than 12 months? -- «klaus»
    • In particular it violates Therefore consider the deletion only of either really harmful redirects or of very recent ones.. Windoze is neither recent (which is why 2004 is relevent), nor very harmful. Ironically, it also violates They have a potentially useful page history, because the previous RFD discussion deciding not to delete would be destroyed. Nfitz 19:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are you seriously and honestly arguing that someone out there might have intentionally linked to 'Windoze', 'Microsloth', 'Winblows', 'M$' and so on; that such linking should somehow be preserved and protected, and that an RFD with two votes is "valuable"? Really? Why don't you just explain your real motivation and stop this martinet charade? -- «klaus»
  • Keep this one... I remember Windoze from a BBS back in 1989, well before I even considered using it (and before there actually was something to consider using). This is not an insult, it's just a slang name that appeared only a few years after release, when it even wasn't hated. Its use declined in the last decade, but still this old name is used sometimes //BTW, just found 2.36 million ghits - way more than I expected. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 23:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also remember when everyone used to call commercial software commercial software, before WP essentially hijacked the term to avoid the possible negative connotation of open source software not being commercial, and instead calls commercial software propietary software everywhere. Should I go ahead and change every instance of propietary to commercial, just because "I remember"? -- «klaus»
      • We aren't considering replacing "Windows" with "Windoze", as your analogy suggests. Only keeping a redirect from a very old and still popular slang name. See the difference. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 23:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, you're endorsing the use of an infantile term that has no place in an encyclopedia. Age has nothing to do with the relevance, if nothing else because I'd be crucified if I wanted to redirect 'Linsux' to 'Linux' or 'open sores' to 'open source'. They're all childish and derogatory (nyuck, nyuck, Windoze redirects to Windows on Wikipedia, nyuck) but one of them is "ok" and can be rationalized successfully because... well, because, I guess. -- «klaus»
          • "Linsux" brings 24,000 hits. "Open sores" is a medical term in the first place, and already redirects to wounds. What else can you name? But Windoze had 2,400,000 hits, and is used just for Windows. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 02:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm sorry, we must be having an impedance mismatch. I fail to understand why there is a need to justify these things by counting Google hits and reminiscing about the good old days. But anyway, don't worry about it. In the end the "M$ is teh suxxorz" crowd is always right around here. I love that you're from the neutrality project, BTW. -- «klaus»
              • It has nothing to do with Microsoft. It's just another slang term - I don't see why we should delete redirect from just a comic pun "windoze" with 2.4M ghits, if we are keeping even highly derogatory redirects like "amerikkka" (444k) or "zionazi" (48k). Unlike the latter ones, people use "windoze" all the time, often without any anti-MS intent. And I have no objections if it's redirected to somewhere else if it's more relevant. I'm not adamant in this position, but just why exactly should it be deleted? The precedents show ones like this are to be kept. If there are equally used ones for Unix, CP/M or whatever else, I'll also vote for keeping them. If you haven't noticed, I voted "delete" on other MS redirects like winblows. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 13:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ummm, ok but this should really redirect back to Jargon File, which makes more sense... RN 00:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that it wasn't just hacker slang, that it was more wide-spread - at least back the days when you used to be able to catch a quick nap while waiting for Windows to open. Nfitz 00:24, 13 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_12&oldid=616542358"