Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 February 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 28[edit]

Look what we found → Look What We Found![edit]

The result of the discussion was Deleted by NawlinWiki as CSD G8. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to deleted page - no other useful option to point it at. See also talk page. pablohablo. 23:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sumerian Records → Cuneiform script[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete--Aervanath (talk) 03:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This began as an article about a record label that was deleted via AfD. One person suggested a redirect to the article on ancient writing, and the closer of the AfD apparently liked it enough to go with it. But this is not a plausible redirect (no one would search for "Sumerian Records" or link to it in an article intending for it to lead to the article on writing). All of the incoming links are about the record label, and having it as a bluelink misleads people into thinking the label has an article. Chubbles (talk) 15:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as misleading --Rogerb67 (talk) 01:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Sumerian Records (as a record label) has nothing to do with Cuneiform script. I can see how Sumerian Records (as an ancient writing system) might look good redirected to Cuneiform script at first blush, but it's misleading as noted. There is a Sumerian disambig page in which Sumerian script → Cuneiform script. Also Sumerian script → Cuneiform script so I think the obvious redirects are covered. — Becksguy (talk) 08:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

WP:HOMO → Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete--Aervanath (talk) 03:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominate for deletion: Either a derogatory or humorous (I'm not psychic) redirect to WikiProject LGBT studies. Project already has 4 shortcuts, this one really isn't needed except for comedic effect. Outsider80 (talk) 07:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Let WikiProject LGBT studies decide for itself. It appears that there are indeed a number of members of the project who find the redirect offensive. Given that the redirect is entirely unnecessary, it would seem that it should be removed. But I say we leave it up to the project itself to decide. --MQDuck 15:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support, Mqduck. — Becksguy (talk) 01:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of LGBT related deletions. Outsider80 (talk) 22:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I don't see any pressing reason to delete a long-standing listed redirect apparently not deemed offensive by its target during its existence, including listing for over 1 year. I suggest discussing it on the project page first; if there is consensus on the project it should go then fine. --Rogerb67 (talk) 01:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clearly there's some feeling about this on the wikiproject - I withdraw my vote and let them decide. --Rogerb67 (talk) 00:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note -- I have listed this RfD at the project's talk page to get more project member opinions on it. (Not to canvass, but in the interests of reaching consensus (whether for-or-against) this time around rather than dragging it out) Outsider80 (talk) 05:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. Although "homo" can easily be used as a derogatory term, "homo" could just as easily be an abbreviation for homosexuality, as most redirects are abbreviations for well known words or terms. The same could be applied to WP:QUEER as queer would be an abbreviation for Queer Studies. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 06:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Homo may be an abbreviation for homosexuality, but let's be real--who are most of the people that actually use this particular abbreviation? Even when gay people use it toward each other, it is either derogatory or self-deprecating (kind of like "fag"). If gay people want to call each other this, fine, both sides have a shared experience & understanding. But to use this as an official Wikipedia shortcut for a whole WikiProject is offensive. Just as offensive as WP:DYKE, WP:CARPETMUNCHER, etc. would be. (Personally, I don't consider queer offensive, because enough people use it proudly as a self-identifier & it has its own history, but that's just my opinion) Enough people call gays words like homo and faggot without this kind of thing being in place. :-/ Outsider80 (talk) 10:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply You're veering into personal point of view. Personally, I'd have a much harsher reaction to someone calling me "a queer" than I would "a homo" even though I know the extensive history of both terms. In real life, I'm sure no one uses "homo" as an abbreviation, then again, not all redirects are "official" abbreviations used in everyday life. Secondly, "HOMO" being abbreviated for homosexuality can't exactly compare to WP:FAGGOT or WP:CARPETMUNCHER or WP:NIGGER which are words that are used exclusively as derogatory terms. "Gay", "Queer", and in this case "Homo" have ambiguity. And as far as "Dyke" in my experiense, I've met an unusually high number of Lesbians who insist on being called "dykes" becuase they find "lesbian" offensive. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 21:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - My only POV in this matter is that in this context, "homo" (without the "-sexual") is offensive. 4 other more-likely-to-be-used redirects exist. Quite frankly, if someone had caught this back when it was created, it might have qualified for speedy deletion of an implausible redirect/typo. Either this was a homophobic easter egg, or someone just trying to be funny. Either way, it has survived since it was slid in (in 2007) and the editor that added it is since retired & unable to explain himself. We put up with enough anti-gay vandalism on Wikipedia (& more serious anti-gay violence off of Wikipedia), without branding a whole WikiProject using a homophobic slur. My 2 cents, take for what they are worth. Outsider80 (talk) 02:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sort of disagree that the word Faggot doesn't have other meanings, Bookkeeperoftheoccult.. — Moe ε 10:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • My phrasing was off: I meant to say "faggot" has never been used to indicate a positive term for a person like "queer" or "gay" has on an official/political level. I know it has other meanings. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 18:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Personally, I think the term "homo" redirecting to this project is inappropriate as it can be used as a pejorative towards members of the LGBT project and other shortcuts like WP:LGBT, WP:GLBT, WP:LGBTSTUD and WP:GAY already exist as redirects to their page. I am neutral, though, because if members of the project feel like keeping the redirect or find it useful, eh.. — Moe ε 10:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • After seeing many project members comments below about how they find the term offensive or they didn't know of the existence of the shortcut, I am leaning towards more of a delete based on my above comment. — Moe ε 22:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I don't have any problems with it. Will & Grace characters called it each other, so nothing offensive about it to me (which i guess is the potential problem?). I sometimes use it as it is easier to type and remember, but it is not really intuitive, so can be deleted or not, imoYobMod 10:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I find it offensive. And as to the argument that it's been there over a year, I can say - as an active member of the LGBT Project for over a year too - I've never noticed it there or I would have nommed it for deletion too. It's a derogatory term, even if gay people do use it towards one another. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 12:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Setting aside the questions of offensiveness, nothing links to that page except discussion pages like this one and an IP usertalk page within a vandalism warning. I can't actual imagine anyone searching for the LGBT project would use WP:HOMO as a search term. --GedUK  12:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral As the most notorious homo on the site—seriously I ooze it and challenge all who raise their eyebrows in doubt—I do not find it offensive. Actually, I don't find any terms offensive. That said, I've known it has been there for a while, but I always use WT:LGBT when I need to get to the project quickly. Gosh, it's about the only term that Anita Bryant said she might use. How would Anita Bryant find us to see what we're up to? Won't someone please think of the children??? --Moni3 (talk) 13:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - It is an ugly term, and, as a member of the project, I have raised my eyebrows at it before. I just don't get too worried about extra redirects in general. Aleta Sing 16:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — I never noticed the shortcut before either, even as a member of this Wikiproject. I won't get upset either way, delete or keep, so I'm really voting to support those members that do find it offensive (Outsider, Allstar, & Aleta, so far). My guess is that the term was originally just a shortcut for homosexual. But that term has issues also. BTW, the shortcut I really like is WP:LGBT STUD (yes, I know STUD = Studies, but that isn't as funny). — Becksguy (talk) 22:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Although less derogatory than the term "fag" is in reference to a homosexual, "homo" is still derogatory, unlike the term "gay", "LGBT", and, depending on the context, "queer". I don't think it should be kept. --Alexc3 (talk) 02:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Homosexual, homo, queer, butt pirate, etc. ad nauseum are simply various labels over time. Redirects are cheap, so although this is less than enlightened, it is somewhat harmless as is fine as a placeholder until a more compelling use for homo is presented. -- Banjeboi 05:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - By that logic it would be OK to have WP:FAG until "a more compelling use" is presented. --Alexc3 (talk) 01:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • And it isn't even WP:HARMLESS anymore. The ship sailed on it being harmless when members of the project came here when they didn't know about the redirects existence and said they found the term to be offensive. — Moe ε 01:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Whatever, I simply don't agree. To me it's a little used internal redirect that few knew existed until you stirred the pot. Keep it, delete it, write a long song to it - not that big of deal. -- Banjeboi 03:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • For me, it's not that it's little used, it's not used at all. I know space isn't really an issue on WP, but it seems pointless having redirects that aren't used, and I can't believe that anyone looking for the LGBT project would use that search term. --GedUK  08:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's a point of disagreement, terms used to find LGBT communities vary widely by class, culture, generation, gender and sexual expression. I don't know if there is an easy answer but I also agree that this particular redirect could go either way. -- Banjeboi 10:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • True enough. It's a pity that there isn't a page view count, ie how many times somebody has viewed that page. Either way, it's not a word that generally offends me; that comes mainly from intent of use. I shan't lose sleep if this stays or goes. --GedUK  11:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Mqduck, above, has stricken his keep vote and, although now apparently leaning toward deletion, has opted to leave it up the LGBT Project members to decide. Rogerb67 has changed from keep to "I withdraw my vote and let them decide". Moe ε has changed from neutral to "leaning towards more of a delete". I don't disagree with Benji, Moni or others that don't find the word offensive. (BTW, I do admire Moni's well turned out comments about Anita. :LOL:) Although I don't personally find the term offensive enough in this context to get upset, the fact that several project members do find it offensive is enough for me to vote delete, as I did above. I would find this term highly offensive in other contexts, just as I find the use of the term homosexual highly offensive in that its use intentionally implies a disease rather than an orientation in many cases. Bottom line: My feeling is that if a term is offensive to some of us, we as a project should not use it to refer to ourselves collectively by painting everyone with the same brush. — Becksguy (talk) 04:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant and potentially derogatory. Personally I find it only mildly offensive in this context, but I see no compelling reason to keep it so I definitely lean towards delete. Siawase (talk) 11:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment is there any way to find out how often it's used? I know I have used it, I think. But really is used a lot or never? -- Banjeboi 12:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Special:WhatLinksHere/WP:HOMO seems to work, and from that, apart from a vandal, no one's ever used it. Siawase (talk) 13:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't we all (including me) spent enough time on this. It's been six days. Will an uninvolved admin please close this. — Becksguy (talk) 14:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Special:WhatLinksHere/WP:HOMO only shows existing links, not how often it's been used. If we removed the listing from the project page yet the actual redirect still worked would we even care? My concern is that it actually may be used and its usefulness outweighs the apparent harm we all have recently realized we are being caused. I'll see if I can dig up a use report. -- Banjeboi 15:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How many editors using this redirect would it take to outweigh the number of gay editors who do not wish to have a slur used against them used as this project's shortcut? This redirect does not keep me up at night -- however, out of common self-respect, I do not generally put up with non-gays calling me "homo", even if Will Truman (played by a straight man) takes it with a laugh track. This redirect basically calls WP:LGBT the "HOMO" project, by "HOMO"'s, for "HOMO"'s. If 2 or 3 people use this redirect, that does not change the preceding. Additionally, they would have learned of the "WP:HOMO" (shortcut #5 for LGBT studies) by visting the main project page, and thereful would presumably also know how to get there again on their own. Outsider80 (talk) 15:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update. OK, found the handy Wikipedia article traffic statistics tool, which seems like it would a handy tool for all these redirect discussions. Usages per month seemed to be from roughly 10-25 times. Based on this I suggest leaving the redirect and the project can take it up if it should be simply pulled from appearing on the project page this may help it languishing into disuse if we presume that's how it was propagated. As unfab as it may seem it is being used and I rather have people find us than not. If they're haters they actually might learn something. I also wonder if we shouldn't add WP:Queer as well for the same reason. -- Banjeboi 16:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That might very well just be people clicking the existing link on the project, to see if it works or whatever. Where else would tbe traffic be coming from? Or do you think people have the WP:HOMO shortcut bookmarked outside of wikipedia? Siawase (talk) 17:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously question whether the convenience value for 10-25 people (minor compared to the 227 hits for "WP:LGBT" in that same month) outweighs offensive aspect already discussed. WP:LGBT isn't even only about "HOMOsexuality". (and no i'm not suggesting that each member of the alphabet soup be requisitioned a shortcut, the project has enough already.) Also, to the earlier comment about converting homophobes-- WP-namespace redirs are convenience items for editors, not evangelistic tools. Outsider80 (talk) 18:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's be realistic about it, according to that tool, it has only been used 4 times this year. I highly doubt the convenience of 4 page views by potentially ill-meaning editors could have any weight in this discussion. If anything, it proves that the redirect serves no useful purpose, and as the term is derogatory and offends many project members it is associated with, it shouldn't be kept for any reason. — Moe ε 22:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, reality filter on. No one seemed terribly interested in this until it was brought up. This discussion decides if it should exist at all - the LGBT project can decide if it is published on the project page. Also you may be misreading that stat tool, usages this year are actually at 45 so far; January=16, February=15 and March so far is at 14 with arguably a spike from this discussion. My point is that we don't have to choose only one redirect so must go with only the one that's used the most. It's that this redirect is used, regularly and redirects are cheap. If WP:Flaming homos drove traffic to our project that resulted in articles improving I would feel roughly the same. -- Banjeboi 00:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First I was searching for WP:HOMO and not Wikipedia:HOMO. Next, if WP:Flaming homos was created, it could no doubt be speedy deleted off as nonsense (G1) or as something to disparage or insult its subject (G10). There is no direct link between substantial traffic/article creation improvement and the WP:HOMO redirect as you seem to imply. In fact, the only thing the link seems to correlate with is vandalism, offense caused to editors of the project it links to and low traffic (the redirect has 15 pageviews in February while all other redirects for the project combine total for over 218 views in the same month). — Moe ε 02:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We can't presume whom used the redirect or what they used it for. I certainly haven't noticed 10-25 hits of vandalism a month so we can definitely state that there is no correlation of that - in fact, the page is actually pretty low is vandalism overall. Still seems like we're eager to delete something that is working and sat there blissfully ignored for a year and a half. If it's causing such distress - which I'm unconvinced but maybe - then don't list it prominently. It could still exist and the issue revisited to see if it indeed no longer is used once it no longer is listed. -- Banjeboi 04:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

P600 (neuroscience) → Event-related potential[edit]

The result of the discussion was keep per strong consensus (non-admin closure). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 20:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a useful redirect to have; it should be deleted until an article on the P600 is written. Until then, redlinks are more useful than redirecting to ERP.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It appears P600 is a component of the ERP, and is briefly discussed in the article. Redlinks may be more useful to editors, but a redirect is more useful to the general reader, who takes priority. --Rogerb67 (talk) 01:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it is discussed in the target. I'd also recommend a posting at WP:Requested articles with a notation that it is currently a redirect. B.Wind (talk) 08:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yes, it's a language-relevant ERP component that has been the focus of tons of research; a P600 article is on my long-term to-do list but I haven't had time for it now. I dont' imagine anyone else writing that article in the meantime, either, so I don't know if a redlink will get the job done, and this redirect will at least get the reader to a small bit of information. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 00:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all the above reasonable arguments. I agree that it appears that P600 is a component of ERP and therefore is a valid redirect. And if it becomes an article, so much better. — Becksguy (talk) 04:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

214 (number) → 210 (number)[edit]

The result of the discussion was restore to an article, per WP:SNOW. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this redirect should be deleted. It makes no sense to have 214 redirect to 210. TheFreeloader (talk) 02:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The 214 page used to have actual content which, apparently like many if not most other 3-digit numbers here, was specific to its article. However, at a certain point, one or two editors stepped in to repeatedly turn it into the redirect to 210, despite numerous attempts by various other editors to restore and/or create 214-specific content. No, it doesn't make sense that 214 should redirect to 210, but that doesn't mean the page should be deleted. I think its previous content should be restored without the interference of those who for whatever reason have targeted this particular for redirection.Adrigon (talk) 03:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore content, with link to interesting number paradox. I know we ordinarily avoid self-reference on WP, but I think this is a worthwhile entry-point to an interesting topic. —Ashley Y 04:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I thought the whole point of being the lowest number without a wikipedia article about it, would be that the number actually did not have a wikipedia article.TheFreeloader (talk) 06:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not so much the lowest number without an article that's interesting, it's the lowest number not notable enough to have an article... except for that fact. —Ashley Y 07:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore content. Also, user Arthur Rubin has been acting more than a little inappropriate with his editing of the article. For instance, he removed an AfD notice less than five hours after it was put up, and has reverted the page to a redirect to 210 after every edit otherwise without ever providing a reason beyond "nothing to see here". It disturbs me that a user like this has administrator status. --MQDuck 09:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • An AfD on a redirect is inappropriate. You should have brought it here. Unfortunately, there really isn't a venue to decide whether an article should be kept or merged, other than the individual talk pages. (In this case, it should be Talk:210 (number), rather than Talk:214 (number), as I understand the choices, but there need to be pointers in both.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion should be closed. There seems to be a consensus to restore the content, which has already been done. Brian Jason Drake 09:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore redirect. There is a consensus by one editor who had not previously participated in WikiProject Numbers to restore the content. The content was created in 2007 in violation of WIkiProject Numbers guidelines, and was left as a redirect for some time. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It had real content, as far as I can tell, only for a week in February 2007, recreated by a known vandal in June 2007, and then again in September 2008 and today. "Consensus" to restore content? I don't think so. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore content. The minimal amount of information in the article was still enough for an article on a small natural number. More to the point, a redirect to 210 is needlessly surprising when the same information could be in the article directly. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore content as the current redirect is nonsense. PaulJones (talk) 21:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore content redirect makes no sense; this can be discussed as an AfD if the subject is not considered notable. --Rogerb67 (talk) 00:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep redirect this is a standard type of redirect, as mentioned on WP:REDIR, a redirect to an article that covers the topic in a section. THis is done for a huge number of articles and has widespread consensus. See WP:NUM for consensus on number related articles. JackSchmidt (talk) 04:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore content and expand. Some possible additions:
214!! − 1 is a 205-digit prime number.
The 11th perfect number 2106×(2107−1) has 214 divisors.
214 is the Dewey Decimal Classification for Theodicy (the problem of evil).
214 Aschera is a Main belt asteroid.
E214 is the E number of Ethylparaben.
The Bell 214 is a helicopter.
214 is a song by Rivermaya.
214 is the number of several highways.
If it's not restored then keep redirect which is part of a general scheme to redirect numbers to articles about number intervals. 210 (number) also covers the interval 211-219. PrimeHunter (talk) 05:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Lunar war → List of Aqua Teen Hunger Force episodes#Season_3:_2004[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete--Aervanath (talk) 03:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion: I can see no episode name by this title in the entire list, or the words noted within an episode summary; no article currently link to it either — TAnthonyTalk 16:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete makes no sense with this target and no obvious alternative target. --Rogerb67 (talk) 00:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There appears to be no logical reason for the link. --GedUK  19:21, 4 March 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_February_28&oldid=1136448609"