Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 April 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 29[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 29, 2009

Inter-Entity Boundary Line (BiH) → Inter-Entity Boundary Line[edit]

The result of the discussion was keep--Aervanath (talk) 21:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; unlikely search term. As far as I know, there are no other Inter-Entity Boundary Lines to get the Bosnian one mixed up with. Also, BiH is a relatively obscure country code in the first place. Fried Gold (talk) 18:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "BiH" seems to be a fairly common way of referring to Bosnia and Herzegovina.[1] Besides, redirects are cheap; why do we really need to worry about this? EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as BiH is an accepted abbreviation (e.g. see [[2]]). Even though there may not be any other Inter-Entity Bounday Lines, a user may not know that and so this redirect makes it clear what the target is refering to. PaulJones (talk) 10:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In fairness, not only is BiH common and accepted, it's the ISO three-letter country code for Bosnia and Herzegovina. My point, though, was that BiH is obscure relative to other country codes; it's not something thrown around in conversation like USA or UK. {omitting a paragraph of moot philosophical musings} Anyways, I was already on the fence about nominating this redirect, so without anyone clamoring for deletion, we may as well keep it. Fried Gold (talk) 16:13, 2009 May 3
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Ass burgers → Asperger syndrome[edit]

The result of the discussion was keep. There are probably enough reliable sources which mention "Assburger" that a section could be added to the article documenting pejorative terms for the disorder.--Aervanath (talk) 21:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term, offensive. WillBluebird (talk) 18:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: as a homophone misspelling. –xeno talk 18:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yes, it is an offensive term, but it's also likely to be something that someone will search for (Google results). Aiding search is of greater importance to the encyclopedia than not using potentially offensive terminology. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I know we've had this debate previously. Perhaps for "Ass burger" or something, but there are older debates lying around somewhere. Reasonable search term; appropriate redirect. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition to the above mentioned previous nomination, there are also these: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2006 December 13, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 January 2, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 August 21, and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 December 13. I think any closing of this debate should take the previous discussions into account. There is clearly a feeling by some that these are attack redirects. Personally, I'm neutral. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We've been here before, as evidenced by the linked discussions. My opinion hasn't changed - these are unacceptable disparaging redirects. If you want more, read the previous discussions. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't believe that anyone is making the argument that they be kept based on the fact that they aren't offensive (I certainly am not). However, redirects serve to help bring an editor who is using a search term to the proper article; such redirects include typos, nicknames, and other common phrases that are used instead. "Ass burger" et al are colloquial (albeit derogatory) terms for Asperger that people are likely to search for, with the goal of ending up on the syndrome article. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment been here done that. I was in favor of deletion before and am now, but the precedent and the majority seem to like having these around so this is drama without likelihood of success. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not that I "like" having them around; if I could, I'd wipe the term "ass burger" from existence. However, the goal of Wikipedia is to be a compendium of all human knowledge; this includes the bad along with the good. People that type "ass burger" are looking for Asperger, and we should help them find that, rather than using moral judgements on what we will and won't document. If it was, we'd clear out the entirety of Category:Pejoratives and Category:Pejorative terms for people. EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if anyone is being insulted by this likely search term, it is the long dead Dr Asperger. Resurr Section (talk) 01:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - while this is a notable pejorative term, it's still a pejorative and I don't think it should exist as a redirect. It's worth noting that whereas most of us here might find it humorous, a person with Asperger's would not and would probably find it offensive. Robofish (talk) 09:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If this redirect is deleted, would an article on the use of the term be better? Please look in the categories EVula has provided for examples. I'm sure an article on the term could be written... Resurr Section (talk) 10:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • If the term Ass[]burger[s] is truly notable enough, not only could we have an article on it, we should. On the other hand, let's be sure not to create an Ass burgers article just to avoid dealing with this redirect. Fried Gold (talk) 16:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Personally, I don't think it is notable enough for an article. I also think an actual "Ass burger" article would be even more offensive than just a redirect with the term. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • How likely is it for someone with Asperger's to find the redirects? They aren't listed anywhere, even in the article itself. They're there solely because it is a term people may search for, and so we have the redirects so that people can search the encyclopedia and get the information they're actually looking for. Your argument is pretty much just WP:IDONTLIKEIT; do you think we should delete all perjorative terms? EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is indeed offensive to sufferers of Asperger's, present company included. Glenn L (talk) 12:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The ideal goal, in my opinion, would be to have a list of disparaging terms for assorted groups of people that don't fit into the categories of ethnicity or religion (currently, that's all that exists; see Lists of disparaging terms for people). Then this could be a redirect to there. That's the situation with terms like Injun that don't have their own articles. But don't delete this. Soap Talk/Contributions 00:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Prayer rat → Prayer rug[edit]

The result of the discussion was speedy delete G7. Next time you can mark it {{db-g7}} and it'll go more quickly. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I created this redirect by mistake, by mangling "Prayer rug" and "Prayer mat" into "Prayer rat". How embarrassing! Eubulides (talk) 16:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Battlestar Galactica regulars → Template:GalacticaCharacters[edit]

The result of the discussion was keep--Aervanath (talk) 21:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing deletion for this redirect following a move of the original template to a new name. The only remaining link to the redirect is from an archived talk page, all others have been switched to the new template name. BlueSquadronRaven 16:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, redirects are cheap. The new name though, isn't much better. {{Battlestar Galactica characters}} would be better. –xeno talk 16:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Putting this up to RfD in and of itself is perplexing; this sort of thing is done on a regular basis, and doesn't need to go thru an official process just to take care of a non-problem. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that there's at least one interwiki that pointed to the old name (pl:Szablon:Bohaterowie Battlestar Galactica). Redirects like this are just fine. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedia:HELLHOLE → Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete--Aervanath (talk) 21:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this redirect doesn't make sense. ~EdGl ★ 15:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Seems to have been made purely as a statement of the opinion of the creator. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: A little humor in the project namespace seems perfectly reasonable. Though perhaps it should be changed to redirect to AN/I. ;-) (wikt:hellhole for those who don't get the reference.) --MZMcBride (talk) 18:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change target per MZMcBride. Not only is humor a Good Thing, but ANI is far more of a hellhole than MfD. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't WP:CESSPIT be the logical one to redirect to WP:ANI? ;-) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment lol, well I'm not opposed to humor and wouldn't mind changing the target per above. Makes more sense than the target being WP:MFD at least.. ~EdGl ★ 00:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - sorry, but I don't think this should redirect anywhere. It's a bit insulting, whatever the target. Robofish (talk) 09:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Insulting to who? It's an inside joke, not an attack on anyone. EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ha, ha. At the very least, not the proper target. Go ahead, point it to WP:ANI. But MFD is pretty tame. --UsaSatsui (talk) 20:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying it should be deleted, or its target changed? ~EdGl ★ 21:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying it should be deleted. I do not support a retarget, but have no strong objections to one. --UsaSatsui (talk) 23:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems like a bit of an biased venue, no? (I keed). Delete of course, doesn't appear to maintain wide community usage enough for a redirect. –xeno talk 20:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Bon Wen (language) → Bon Wen (conlang)[edit]

The result of the discussion was speedy G8 by User:Euryalus. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Silver springs elementary school northville MI → Northville Public Schools[edit]

The result of the discussion was keep. Redirects are cheap, and do not have to conform to standard naming conventions or style guidelines.--Aervanath (talk) 21:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an unused redirect and an implausible search term. Things wrong with this redirect: 4 capitization errors, disambiguation is not within parentheses & there should be a comma between the city and the state. Tavix |  Talk  00:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep As the one who changed it to a redirect (I wish I'd been notified of this discussion), I did initially consider deleting rather than redirecting the nn article. However, at least one person, the one who created the initial article, typed this phrase in when searching for the school. Redirects are cheap, nothing will be gained by deletion.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That rationale is so weak. The person who typed it in probably had no idea what was going on and I'd bet you it has not been used since. By some absolute miracle the redirect gets used again, we have a search feature guiding it to the school district (because the school doesn't even have an article!). Hey guess what, nothing will be gained by keeping it either as NO ONE USES THE REDIRECT! (Sorry for being harsh, I feel strongly on this issue). Tavix |  Talk  02:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You feel my rationale for keeping is weak, I feel your rationale for deleting is equally weak. Traffic stats shows the redirect is getting an average of three views a month, with a high of 17 views in January of 2009. Is that enough to keep? I think yes. (I, too, feel strongly about this. Hopefully I've avoided being harsh.)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NOBODYREADSIT: Numbers are arbitrary. Can you prove that it was actually people trying to find the school, or bots and/or page patrollers going though random pages? No you can't. Keeping this has no gain to the Wikipedia, as expressed in my nomination. Tavix |  Talk  15:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize that WP:NOBODYREADSIT is just as much of an argument for keeping as deleting, don't you? Just as I can't prove that the views were real readers, you can't prove they weren't. We're just going around in circles here.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then don't use the arguement. The fact is that the redirect is horribly formatted, and it doesn't even redirect to an article on the school. Tavix |  Talk  00:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as different people will have different ways of capitalising the expression regardless of what is officially correct. This redirect enables someone looking for information on the school to easily find the article containing the sum of information on it - which is not alot. If an article on the school, with correct capitalisation!, is ever created then this redirect can be retargeted to it. If amount of use becomes a reason for deletion then large chunks of wp would probably disappear. This redirect is not harmful and is potentially useful. PaulJones (talk) 19:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create the proper form, then delete this one. The little menu that comes down as you type (whatever its name is) will catch all traffic. Note that this satisfies all the concerns of people who have commented here so far, including the nominator. Resurr Section (talk) 20:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, that doesn't satisfy me either as you are just pushing the problem to another redirect. Tavix |  Talk  15:04, 3 May 2009 (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/2009_April_29&oldid=1146651999"