Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 February 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 6[edit]

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS → Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions[edit]

The result of the debate was no consensus. See also closing statement below. -- Renesis (talk) 19:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect to Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions has been used quite a lot already, but it is unnecessarily rude when used as a reply (which is its only use) to an argument made in good faith by others in deletion discussions. Therefore, I nominate this redirect for deletion or renaming to a more neutral text like WP:COMPARE or WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. See also Wikipedia talk:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#About the shortcuts. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:BITE. >Radiant< 15:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - agree it should be used sparingly, but the usage has possibly improved the quality of discussions. Addhoc 15:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hardly! If anything, it's made deletion discussions more divisive! - Ta bu shi da yu 06:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • P.S. this doesn't mean I don't find it highly amusing, or that I am less likely to use it judiciously (when things get ridiculous), but I think it's best not to keep it as a redirect. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it's a tongue-in-cheek comment, and not meant to be taken insultingly. - Chardish 15:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Chardish. You can always pipe-link it. But if we do delete it, I think the nom's suggestions for alternative names are good ones. Veinor (talk to me) 16:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:ILIKEIT and so on were originally (deliberately) redlinks, but now they redirect to the essay on arguments to avoid, which is arguably much more useful. This is in the same class as all the others, which were made into redirects because people were already using them (i.e. existence of the redirect may not have materially affected the number of people referred to WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS or similar). I don't see much sign it's being used to bite newbies, the usual recipients seem to be experienced editors falling into the old trap of suggesting that because we have an article on every episode of foo, we must also have one on every episode of bar. There are several redirects to the essay. Guy (Help!) 16:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Even if it doesn't necessarily go against WP:BITE, it's certainly not WP:CIVIL. Wl219 22:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Guy's comments. JoshuaZ 23:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per JzG. JuJube 02:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Guy. Guettarda 02:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I fundamentally disagree with the notion that redirects must somehow always be neutral. If you would like to create a new redirect and add it to Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (and even remove the link to the current redirect), that's fine. But the redirect should not be deleted simply because it might be "rude". --- RockMFR 03:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you referring to any redirect? Like for instance, redirecting cock-jockey to Bill Clinton would be a non-neutral redirect, and deleted on sight. P.S. don't do this, or I'll block you for 15 minutes for being disruptive. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While I generally don't like deliberately offensive redirects to essays or policy pages, this one is within the bounds of, well, not good taste but at least of acceptable taste for internet forums. And it very clearly and unambiguously expresses the point that the authors are trying to make. Rossami (talk) 05:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I do not see how this redirect is useful, as its only purpose would be to use in a snappy answer in an AfD, and there's no reason we ought to encourage snappy answers. Heimstern Läufer 06:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Posting a link with "crap" on an AFD debate poisons an already contentious atmosphere. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete a bit uncivil for my taste but wikipedia is not censored and it isn't generally used in a biting or NPA way. However, given the aften divisive nature of deletion discussions I think that we are better off without this redirect which too often does more harm than good. Eluchil404 15:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Would bringing up the existence of other tongue-in-cheek redirects like WP:DICK and WP:SPIDER be in violation of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS? ;) - Chardish 17:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in some form, but preferably rename to one of the nominator's suggestions. In response to Chardish: what about WP:Oh I say, what are you doing? Come down from there at once! Really, you're making a frightful exhibition of yourself.? I'd nominate that for deletion myself, except it seems to be some sort of joke among the project's administrators; something tells me they'd get their way in a debate – Qxz 23:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, much worse redirects then this one exist, why should we delete this one? Seraphimblade 08:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, incivil and unhelpful. Much shorter acronyms exist if you can't remember the full page name, and if you're just in love with using the word "crap" in deletion discussions (which sounds like a textbook example of things to avoid), write it out yourself/pipe link it. -- nae'blis 16:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The next shortest way to DIRECTLY link to that subsection is by using WP:AADD#What about article x?, which is longer and harder to remember. And pipelinks can just as well be used to remove the word 'crap' if you object to it. Veinor (talk to me) 21:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's handy to use in afds. Nardman1 19:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Useful redirect. Start a rename discussion if you like. Nssdfdsfds 19:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, needlessly inflames AfD discussions. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Several redirects → Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions[edit]

The result of the debate was keep — no consensus to delete. While I agree with some of the sentiments of those wishing to delete these redirects, there is simply not community consensus to delete the redirects. However, consensus did seem to exist to rename SCORCHEDEARTH, so I have done so, to WP:ALLORNOTHING. -- Renesis (talk) 19:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The essay Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions has a whole bunch of shorthand redirects, redirecting to several subheadings in the essay. As the essay promotes the use of solid arguments rather then just shouting shortcuts, the use of this diversity of redirects goes against the idea of the essay. Because some redirects have been used quite often by now (WP:ILIKEIT, WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:INTERESTING, WP:USEFUL, WP:AADD), these probably should be left alone, but I do want to nominate the following redirects to this essay for deletion (usage counts to not include the discussion of the redirects themselves):

See also Wikipedia talk:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#About the shortcuts. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, a single page does not need a dozen shortcuts. The common one is ILIKEIT, most of these mean basically the same, and some of them aren't even particularly short. >Radiant< 15:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I created WP:ATA because WP:AADD reminds me of the BC versus BCE debates. That said, I didn't realise that WP:USEFUL exists. Suggest the more popular shortcuts are listed on the essay page. Addhoc 15:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all except WP:SCORCHEDEARTH, which is confusing. I created WP:ITSFUNNY after seeing a few redlinks to it, actually. I do not agree that the presence of shortcuts encourages editors to make terse, low-content AfD comments; rather, they simply make wikilinks easier to create. Furthermore, I do not agree that we should apply different standards to redirects that are in common use and ones that are not. - Chardish 15:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think more shortcuts are just going to lead to more confusion in the long run, especially when so many point to the same thing. I would suggest that something more descriptive than WP:AADD be created as a pointer to the main essay, because I think people misunderstand what the main essay is about. ColourBurst 16:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, several of these references predate both the essay and the redirects. They are there because they are needed to contrast, for example, WP:INTERESTING and WP:USEFUL (not policy) with WP:V and WP:NOR (policy). We explain to people why their "keep" arguments, even if more numerous than the delete arguments, fail to persuade in deletion debates. Redirects are cheap. What's important is the essay, which we need to watch to ensure that it does not cause the problems identified above. Guy (Help!) 16:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A few people's indescretions over their use of the link in an offensive context (i.e., by itself with no explanation) should not negate the tongue-in-cheek purpose behind the shortcut's creation and common usage. Flakeloaf 17:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep BUT I have a major qualm in that these redirects point below the part where the article explains that it is an essay, not guidelines. While quick hit redirects to policy or guidelines make AfD livable, can we look for consensus (or lack thereof) on the guidelines before we decide whether the redirects are useful? Oh, and rename WP:SCORTCHEDEARTH, maybe WP:AoN or WP:ALL or WP:NOTHING.--144.71.77.200 19:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems that this is just favoring older, more established shortcuts to the essay's subsection over recently created shortcuts to the essay's other subsections. --Farix (Talk) 20:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Rename. My experience with them has been that they're used against the spirit of WP:CIVIL and/or WP:BITE. Indiscriminate use of them overlook the fact that Arguments to Avoid is an essay not policy nor a guideline. They only add to AfD confusion and rancor. Tongue-in-cheek intention is irrelevant because of their current negative effect on AfD's. Favoring older over newer redirects is irrelevant because this is about the quality of the redirects not their age. Perhaps many of you have been in so many AfD debates that you've forgotten how intimidating and frustrating it can be to be faced with a half dozen cites to what appear at first to be different policies, but really just point to sections of the same essay. Delete all and just have WP:AVOID pointing to the main essay, not sections. Wl219 22:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It could be argued that those who can't distinguish between policy, guideline and essays shouldn't be participating in AfD discussions in the first place should learn more about the distinction before drawing conclusions about what they read in an AfD discussion. Flakeloaf 22:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply You may be right, but do you really see it happening? =P Wl219 23:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) and I have had some productive discussion of these redirects at Wikipedia talk:Don't overuse shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument. Basically, I wrote an essay that says that belittling opinions in deletion discussions, attempting to pre-emptively announce that some arguments are considered "invalid" and should be rightly discounted, and replying to opinions (especially "keep" opinions) with canned responses was uncivil and intimidating, and threatens to distort the meaning of consensus and the source of policy and guidelines. We seem to agree that WP:ILIKEIT is overused, and used badly sometimes. I'm not sure that these redirects, being little used, are not the problem, or that deleting shortcuts that are widely used will achieve anything more than make the aggressive rebutter of "keep" opinions try to remember and type longer strings. In other words, they are useful to those people who like them. :grin: So I have no opinion as of yet as to whether these redirects deserve deletion. - Smerdis of Tlön 23:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment While some of the arguments in this essay are misused sometimes, it seems like that stems from a misinterpretation of the essay content itself rather than a problem with the shortcuts. While Wikipedians need to understand that these are arguments to avoid, not invalid arguments, I don't think that has anything to do with whether these shortcuts should be kept or not. If I want to reference this page, I'll do it, shortcuts or not: and the lack of the shortcuts would be more of an annoyance than a discouragement. - Chardish 17:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Guy and Flake although I do share some of Chardish's concern about WP:SCORCHEDEARTH. JoshuaZ 23:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Guy. Guettarda 02:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the reason I say this is because I've noticed more than one person using the shortcut WP:ILIKEIT and trying to make out it says things it doesn't. It's unnecessarily divisive, makes it look like people are citing policy (which can confuse newbies and even some more experienced editors) and ultimately stifles reasoned debate. It stifles reasoned debate because people just use a stupid shortcut in place of their reasoning. Most frustrating, I must tell you! It certainly turns AFD into more of a battleground than it should be. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with Ta Bu Shi Da Yu. These redirects are frequently used by people who haven't even read the essay, and try to stuff all opposing arguments under the carpet by labelling them "WP:ILIKEIT" or something similar. The practise of linking to this essay by means of these redirects has been damaging to AFD, and the practise of doing so should be stopped. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a case in point: I got quite annoyed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Airlines destinations with people who were trying to say that the entire "keep" argument was based on ILIKEIT. There were plenty of arguments pointing out that the items were verifiable, and that it was a significant part in the coverage of the airlines' business models. The introduction of ILIKEIT, and at the end a "IWORKEDHARDONITANDNOWIMGOINGTOLEAVEYOUDELETIONISTB*ST*TD", from the people arguing for "deletion" served only to inflame the discussion and insult the people who argued for keeping. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but rename SCORCHEDEARTH. Redirects are cheap, memorable, and convenient. If the redirects are being used to present strawmen that is for the individual debates to resolve. -- zzuuzz(talk) 14:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all except SCORCHEDEATH which is potentially inflammatory and easy to misread (as some kind of death). Lack of use is a quite reason to delete redirects. They're cheap and might be useful shortcuts even if not used on pages. Eluchil404 16:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment We all live on planet Eath. Flakeloaf 00:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the problem isn't existence, it's possibly bad usage. Rather than citing these as fact (or even saying "per WP:IDONTKNOWIT"), it's best to say "I disagree with you, because of the reasoning delineated on WP:IDONTKNOWIT." No reason to get sloppy or laconically uncivil just because a shortcut exists, but no reason to delete the shortcuts either. GracenotesT § 22:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Template:Harvest → Template:User Harvest[edit]

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by Chairboy, author requested deletion. BryanG(talk) 06:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accidentally named the template "Template:Harvest" instead of "Template:User Harvest" Jamie L. 19:15, 6 February 2007 (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/2007_February_6&oldid=1084304842"