Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2006 September 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 14[edit]

Template:WRS-Philippines → Template:WHS-Philippines[edit]

The nominated redirect was Deleted by Xaosflux. -- JLaTondre 04:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I mistakenly misspelled this. Speedy delete if possible. --Howard the Duck 18:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged it for you. In the future you can use speedy it as db-author to request speedy deletion if you were the only author and want deletion. Though when you do it you need to use four {{ }} around the db-author like I just did. --69.156.204.122 21:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

New york NLL → New York Titans (NLL)[edit]

The nominated redirect was Kept. -- JLaTondre 11:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was a redirect to New York NLL (note upper/lowercase) which was a page about an expansion team in the NLL. The name of this team has now been announced, so the New York NLL page was renamed. The old redirect is no longer necessary. MrBoo (talk, contribs) 02:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep. An unlikely, but not implausible redirect. It's cheap and doesn't get in the way of anything else. Irongargoyle 05:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not everyone can be expected to know the team names. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Harmless. •NikoSilver• 12:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was speedily deleted by Radiant --Coredesat talk! 17:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Crap → Template:Db-nonsense, Template:Moron → Template:Db-bio, Template:Morons → Template:Db-bio[edit]

Per below Irongargoyle 01:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • All three speedied as attack pages. >Radiant< 15:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Attack page is not a valid criterion here. A6 is for articles—would T1 apply here? BigNate37(T) 15:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • T1, G4, and G3 would apply here. At any rate, they're gone, so I'm closing the debate. --Coredesat talk! 17:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Template:Useless → Template:Db-nocontext[edit]

The nominated redirect was Deleted. —Centrx→talk • 05:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per below Irongargoyle 01:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I don't really see any use for a Useless template; we may point out why a page should not be in Wikipedia, but just calling it "Useless" is not helpful. Note that a redirect with the same name (but pointing to another location) was already deleted just a few days ago. Schutz 07:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The content, not the title, is what G4 applies to, so this isn't speediable as recreated material. Just thought I'd clear that up. BigNate37(T) 15:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Adding a template with this name amounts to incivility, even if it's not as bad as {{shit}}. Gavia immer (u|t|c) 16:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Embarrasing for editors. More harm than good. Civility. •NikoSilver• 12:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The nominated redirect was speedily deleted by Radiant. G4 and G3 would apply here. --Coredesat talk! 17:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Shit → Template:Db-nocontext[edit]

Needlessly antagonistic attack template that redirects to db-nocontext. I wasn't sure if this or templates for deletion was the appropriate location, so I apologize if I put this in the wrong place. Violates WP:BITE, the general spirit of Wikipedia, as well as the criterion for redirect deletion of offensive redirects. Irongargoyle 01:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete I can't see this as anything but an attack on Db-nocontext. --64.229.74.60 01:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other offenders are Template:Crap (to Template:Db-nonsense), Template:Moron & Template:Morons (to Template:Db-bio). We may want to consider these as well, I'm not sure. BigNate37(T) 01:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from creator I did think this might happen, but I thought the best way to tell was to be bold and do it. I find these quite a lot more memorable than the db- prefixed templates, they're not supposed to be an attack as such. I also created useless, but haven't used it. Dave 01:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I find the best way for me to remember is to use the ones that have the criterion number-letter codes, i.e. {{db-a7}} and {{db-r3}}. Between all those redirects and a seperate tab with WP:CSD open, it's not too bad. BigNate37(T) 01:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all because they will inevitably be interpreted as deliberately provocative and inflammatory. We should be encouraging civility and reason, not giving people even more reasons to start pointless flame wars. As BigNate says, we already have plenty of short-cuts for these templates. Rossami (talk) 04:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. I can understand the desire to create more memorable names; and I applaud the simplicity compared to the obscure original ones. But I agree with Rossami that people receiving this templates will get the wrong message (paticularily as with that abbreviation, I'm sure some editors will be tempted to write 'shit' in the Edit summary. I think the desire to keep everything civil, means we should have these kind of abbreviations! Many vandals don't seem that serious and to respond much more positively to civility Nfitz 05:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as WP:CSD G4 candidates and perhaps T1 candidates (the titles are needlessly offensive and inflammatory). See this TFD discussion from June 2005. It was determined that making templates like this is confrontational, incivil, and insulting. Thought the concerned template was then an "alternative" for {{cleanup}}, I cannot see how being an alternative for {{db}} instead is a significant difference which addresses concerns from the previous TFD. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a redirect, not a template. I don't think the TfD has much bearing on a later RfD, though others may disagree with me. You're within your right to add {{db-g4}} to the template and see what comes of it. BigNate37(T) 07:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • In one sense and with a strict interpretation of the rules yes. But the arguments presented in that TFD are still fully valid and relevant to this discussion, and I feel that this TFD determined that we would definitely not create templates (or, admittedly by extension, redirects to templates) which call for adding "{{shit}}" or "{{crap}}" to an article. Speedy delete might be an WP:IAR, but I still feel it's of the Interpret all rules variety. Don't get me wrong, I don't care that much if this is deleted after 1 day or seven days, as long as nobody tries using these templates. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy deleted as attack page. >Radiant< 15:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Attack page is not a valid criterion here. A6 is for articles—would T1 apply here? BigNate37(T) 15:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Flood of 2006 → Mid-Atlantic United States flood of 2006[edit]

The nominated redirect was Deleted. -- JLaTondre 11:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The title of this redirect page is too ambiguous (it could redirect to a vast number of articles, too many for a disambig page), and it's US-centric. There have been more significant floods than the one this redirect targets. Coredesat talk! 01:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete While I'm at this page - as per Coredesat. Dave 01:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy deletions need to be justified by a criterion at WP:CSD. Please provide a reasoning for which criterion applies, or reconsider your speedy nom. BigNate37(T) 16:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is it too much of a stretch to say that R3 applies, as most searching for this title would not be expecting this paticular flood? If so, delete the speedy. Also, if so, perhaps we need to introduce R4: Redirect may reasonably be expected redirect to one of several unrelated aritcles? Dave 21:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think I'd call this a typo. As far as the suggested criterion goes, the best solution is to create a disambiguation page over top of the redirect and add the ones you know—editors who are looking for a different flood can help expand the disambig (it doesn't have to be perfect the first go). BigNate37(T) 22:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not sure a disambig page would work in this case. It would need to contain every flood (or storm that caused notable flooding) in 2006, worldwide. That would be a fairly large dab. --Coredesat talk! 23:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is too generic for a disambig to be much use. If we were talking about United States flood of 2006 it would be different, but there are just too many possible events for this to be reasonable. As a disambig, this would have a serious bias towards the US and Europe. IMO the most significant flood this year was associated with Tropical Storm Bilis (2006) but that has no article.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • We would only have to list the notable floods which have articles written on them, and note that the first version of any disambiguation generally is not also the final version and sometimes only has three terms. In any event, I agree it is not a useful redirect at present target. BigNate37(T) 15:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and above. -- NORTH talk 04:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to "list of floods in 2006" if such list exists.•NikoSilver• 12:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

MSMC (Mount Scopus Memorial College) → Mount Scopus Memorial College[edit]

The nominated redirect was Deleted. -- JLaTondre 11:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It seems to be a redirect to Mount Scopus Memorial College, but it's not likely that anyone will try to get to the article that way. MSMC would be a more intuitive route. ... discospinster talk 02:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've created MSMC per spinster's reasoning. Oh, and delete for the same reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave (talk • contribs) 22:20, September 14, 2006
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Panaphonics → List of products in The Simpsons[edit]

The nominated redirect was Kept. -- JLaTondre 11:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mention of "Panaphonics"´in the target article Mikli 09:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's from episode 3F11, Scenes from the Class Struggle in Springfield. Then again, it's mentioned only once or twice. >Radiant< 15:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep to preserve non-trivial edit history. BigNate37(T) 15:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see why not. Hello32020 23:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. — CharlotteWebb 19:19, 16 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_14&oldid=1138574316"