Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 September 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 1[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 1, 2008

License fee → Television licence[edit]

The result of the debate was Re-targetted to License. -- JLaTondre (talk) 11:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why television licenses, specifically? 69.140.152.55 (talk) 02:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While other licences certainly have fees, certainly in the UK "licence fee" is synonymous with the TV licence and very rarely if ever used outside of that context. Waggers (talk) 11:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to License, which has some minimal discussion of licenses granted for a fee. The narrower UK-specific meaning is not useful for users not acquainted with compulsory television licensing, and not necessarily useful for users who are familiar with it, if they wanted a more general overview. Please note that the concept of license fees could certainly use an expanded discussion somewhere; the best long-term result would be for this to be an article or a redirect to an article with more information than my suggested target above. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • A standalone article on license fees would be preferable (dog licences, hunting licences, occupation license, television license, etc.), but until someone is ambitious enough to write it, retarget to License#See also per Gavia immer. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 20:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

L.D.F. → Yaoi[edit]

The result of the debate was Re-targeted to LDF. If anyone feels the previous target should be included on the disambiguation page, that's something that can be worked at the LDF talk page if needed. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

L.D.F. does not mean yaoi, looking at the user's other contribs this redirect seems to be a form of vandalism. Malkinann (talk) 23:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:BRIT → Wikipedia:British Isles Terminology task force[edit]

The result of the debate was Kept. One day between closure of a deletion debate and renomination is too soon. -- JLaTondre (talk) 11:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The word "Brit" usually means Briton, ie. someone from the UK. British Isles terminology is a controversial and sensitive subject, and this connotation is unwelcome as it detracts from the collaborative nature of the project. In any case, there are probably far more appropriate pages that WP:BRIT could/should be a shortcut for. Waggers (talk) 12:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • support actual delete here: Wikipedia:UK has been tried as a home for it, but this has been reverted. I would recommend deleting it until someone actually requires it (though is this even likely?) I have five distinct reasons to delete it (esp 4 and 5):
    • 1) Only one person wants it at WP:BITASK (there is no consensus or desire for it), and there are plenty of other shortcuts there.
    • 2) "British Isles" is the geographical name of an archipelagos - it not a cultural or political term in any technical sense: The Republic of Ireland is part of the archipelagos, but is not British: "Brit" gives the incorrect impression that the taskforce, the term, and even the Republic of Ireland are British entities.
    • 3) Even though ‘British Isles’ is a geographical term, a number of people have taken offense to it on Wikipedia - hence the need for the actual taskforce in the first place. It is against the very principle of the taskforce to have a misleading name.
    • 4) IMO, if it's not actually deleted it could always be a problem - now and in at a 'British Isles workshop' planned for the future too - especially if it is used as a shortcut regardless of the taskforce or workgroup accepting it on their pages. These things must have consensus, but this has fallen through a kind of loophole. It's like someome creating the shortcut 'NOB', and us all having to find the best article for it to point too, only to find someone keeps re-pointing it to your user page. Surely it should be deleted until someone actually wants the shortcut NOB?
    • 5) If someone needs BRIT in the future they can always re-make it. IMO, this is very unlikely however, as the word British has always had ambiguities, and all the UK Wikiprojects etc never chose to create a 'BRIT' on its own - it was just created recently by somone for WP:BITASK.--Matt Lewis (talk) 13:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. There may be plenty of shortcuts, so why did you create them all? So that you could say "There are plenty of shortcuts". WP:BRIT is the longest standing shortcut for the project still in use. You may say there is no consensus for it when actually there is no consensus to delete it.
Untrue on both counts. BRIT is not "in use" at WP:BITASK - you've just tried to reinstate it after a few weeks! We just had the one shortcut initially - WP:BIT, created by User:Waggers (like Wikipedia:UK chooses to do, we kept it simple and just used one). You created BRIT so I made more to prove that others are clearly better (ie not misleading or potentially offensive), and also to stop you from arguing "but we only have the one", as I know your disruptive motives! --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It doesn't give an incorrect impression. That's just your conjecture. there is no evidence for that.
  2. In the main the people who have taken offence to the term "British Isles" are quite often Irish, yet none of the objectees to the shortcut are Irish. Why is that, do you think?
  3. Conjecture, yet again. If there is a problem at some unknown point in the future, I'm pretty sure that the community will cope and solve the problem when it arises.
  4. So your only objection is to WP:BRIT being a shortcut to the task force page? You are quite happy for it to be used in any other context?
Lets be clear what the problem really is. The real problem is that I created the shortcut, isn't it, Matt?Crispness (talk) 18:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Is it reasonable to start another RfD when a previous discussion only closed yesterday resulting with a keep. What has changed in the last 24 hours that warrants another discussion? Crispness (talk) 16:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Probably you reverting it to point back to WP:BITASK, when the prior decision was that others may want it, and it can point elsewhere. You have proved how why needs to be actually deleted. --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you will find, if you bothered to read the closeure comments, that you were supposed to go and discuss with potential new 'owners' of the shortcut them asking to take it over. But you haven't done that. Instead, you decided to change the redirect without discussion or reference to anyone. That was after you'd blanked the page and created a circular reference. Let me be very clear here - if another project wants the shortcut they can have it with my blessing. If not then it is entirely appropriate for it to point at the task force.Crispness (talk) 18:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are just trying to create work for me, as you get a kick out of it. Wikipedia:UK only uses the one shortcut - why should I enforce yours onto them? Some projects want to keep it simple. As for your 'blessing'! You've had no other reason to pursue this the way you have other than to be disruptive. Edit warring over an unwanted shortcut? Please. Two people have taken it here now.--Matt Lewis (talk) 20:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion - is there a 'WikiProject United Kingdom' for this to redirect to instead? That would probably make more sense as the target of WP:BRIT, and solve the problems raised by this target. The 'British Isles Terminology task force' has plenty of incoming redirects already; if this one is problematic, it can be redirected somewhere else without making that page impossible to find. Terraxos (talk) 20:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was asked to do find somewhere for it, so I tried the United Kingdom wikiproject (WIKIPEDIA:UK), but Crispness reverted it back to WP: BITASK, he says because I didn't ask them if I could do it. The problem is they choose to just use the one shortcut. Why should I have to talk them into using another difficult one? They clearly want to keep life simple. "Brit" has aways been an ambiguous word - nobody has ever wanted it, up until Crispness decided to make a disruptive point at BITASK. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE: This has been pushed to 3RR by Crispness so is currently on the WP:BITASK page (despite being off it for weeks, and only ever on it for short periods) - I will start a poll there to prove it isn't wanted. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close The last RfD was closed just the other day. -- Ned Scott 04:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - yep, sorry I didn't realise that when I started this RfD. Waggers (talk) 11:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

ˈkwɝti → QWERTY[edit]

The result of the discussion was Speedy Delete per R3: an implausible typo or misnomer. (non-admin close) -Brougham96 (talk) 12:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Next in the long line of QWERTY redirects.. I have tagged several more for speedy delete wich were similar to those listed yesterday, however this one baffles me.. Is this one just nonsense or could it be from some other language/region? There is no mention of it on the QWERTY page. Brougham96 (talk) 02:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • That would be the phonetic spelling under either the International Phonetic Alphabet or Speech Assessment Methods Phonetic Alphabet. (They both resolve to the same notation in this case.) I seriously hope that we are not suddenly creating redirects for phonetic notations as a rule. Redirects are cheap but this would be a difficult precedent to support. Unless there is a good reason to keep this that I'm not aware of, delete. Rossami (talk) 03:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ah, I knew I was missing something on this one. I would tend to agee to delete in this case (Although as the nominator, it shouldn't count as a vote) -Brougham96 (talk) 03:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2008_September_1&oldid=1142588091"