Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 August 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 23[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 23, 2010

Wikipedia:OTHERCRAPEXISTS[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This shortcut is frequently used in AfD discussions against "keep" !voters who try to defend their article by saying that similar articles exist. Unfortunately, when somebody uses this shortcut, they seem to be saying "your article is crap," which violates WP:NPA and WP:BITE. There are much better shortcuts for the same thing, such as WP:OTHERSTUFF, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and WP:WAX. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep both - I am sympathetic with the nominator's sentiments. However, these are well-established short-cuts and deletion would produce innumerable red links. Further, this is the wrong forum. The prime venue for deciding on the suitability of project short-cuts is the relevant talk page; in this case Wikipedia talk:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. It is not for us to decide what short-cuts a project needs. Bridgeplayer (talk) 18:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment-Users may want to review this prior disccusion and this one, both no consensus RfDs on this redirect from 2007, around when it was created.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete-I've never cared for this redirect. I simply can not understand how calling anyone's contributions "crap" could be considered anything but uncivil. Imagine, for a moment, some one made a !vote on an AfD calling the article in question a piece of crap. I've little doubt the editor would be scolded for violating WP:CIVL. And yet, when cloaked in a redirect, that same sentiment is perfectly acceptable? To me, that just smacks of hypocrisy.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep It appears I somehow created this redirect. Since I have no love for the phrasing either, I can only imagine that, one day three years ago, I saw a red-linked reference to WP:OTHERCRAP in AfD, and decided to give it a link so that any newbies would have a context in which to understand the term. While I agree that the term is not the ideal of highest civility, I believe the reference will continue to be made, even if the link is deleted. As long as folks persist in using the phrase, I believe a redirect is essential to providing background for the uninformed. In most cases, I don't think the people who employ the phrase have any malice in mind. At an abstract level, most people understand that certain others might consider their own favorite topics relatively useless. To casually demean a topic does not necessary imply that editors who have worked on it are unskilled or wrong to have done so. On the other hand, I do agree that varying standards of taste will cause some editors to interpret the word "crap" as a more serious expletive -- hence, my support is only weak. Xoloz (talk) 01:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep OTHERCRAPEXISTS. (not sure about OTHERCRAP) It's linked in enough AFDs, noticeboards, and talk page archives to still be useful. Agree that it's current use is inappropriate and bitey in most cases. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Couldn't we just modify the links to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment The problem with that solution is that some folks will continue to type WP:OTHERCRAP as a shorthand, and that shorthand will be left red-linked, confusing newbies. Xoloz (talk) 07:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: While I appreciate the sentiment that "crap" could be considered inherently negative, I believe this redirect, as opposed to simply OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, is especially relevant when the editor has themselves attacked other pages which they disagree with. The fact that crap exists on wikipedia isn't a reason to perpetuate more. In any case it's in frequent usage (I discovered this discussion because I used it myself just now) and I don't believe its usage is problematic; the fact is, some material is crap from a wikipedia standpoint, and needs to be deleted. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - as the nominator admits, these redirects are frequently used in deletion discussions. I don't much like them either, but deleting them would just turn all those links into redlinks, which doesn't seem particularly helpful. It seems better to keep the redirects for historical purposes, but discourage their use (removing them from the list of shortcuts on the target page, for example). Robofish (talk) 22:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That actually sounds like a pretty good compromise to me, especially given that, to my reading, most of the keeps thus far seem to consider its use less than ideal, but don't want it deleted because of concerns regarding the problems of broken links.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm, not bad. We could make it so that its use is discouraged, but those who insist on using it will, I guess, keep on using it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. For reasons of its own (it comments on content, not editor, so avoids NPA) as well as just being friggin' useful. Besides, if it weren't for OTHERCRAPEXISTS i would be able to point out that we have WP:DICK, which would fall under the same rationale you use for deletion. -- ۩ Mask 14:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep one, weak keep for other I alternate between using the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS - depending on the type of argument I'm answering to. For example, if someone says "well crappy article A exists, so should mine", then othercrapexists it is. I have no real concern either way (weak keep) about the shorter WP:OTHERCRAP, but please keep the longer WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keepp While I sympathize with KOH this issue this should stay. It is should normally used on experienced editors only and the less offensive WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS exists for other situations. meshach (talk) 19:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

1916 U.S. ballet premieres[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete as improbable. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - wholly improbable search term. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 18:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Something a Maku would like[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely redirect term. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 17:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - bizarre; I can't find any meaning for this redirect. Delete as confusing. Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nonsensical. –Grondemar 05:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: looks like a "rickroll", though I'm not sure what the redirect term is meant to mean. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nonsense. Uncle Dick (talk) 16:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Never gonna give you up (Aurae's Given Up On Rickrolls Remix)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy delete under G7. — ξxplicit 17:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term, not mentioned in target. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 17:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nannerpus[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget seems to be the most sensible option, as the edit history indicates it shouldn't be deleted. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Same as below. Not mentioned in target, not likely to be, either. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 17:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move page to a subpage of Talk:Denny's and delete the resulting redirect. This is a former article and content appears to have been merged (though subsequently removed). Consequently, we shouldn't be deleting for GFDL reasons. Bridgeplayer (talk) 18:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Super Bowl XLIII#Commercials, the only page on Wikipedia that actually mentions Nannerpus. Uncle Dick (talk) 21:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Nannerpuss[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target and not likely to be; it was a short lived ad campaign not worthy of mention anywhere. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 16:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Piers Moron[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep and correct the target for relevance. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are some derogatory nicknames that have acquired a lasting degree of significance and noteworthiness such that a redirect is appropriate (e.g. milk snatcher), and there are those for which redirects are plain old WP:BLP violations. I invite discussion about "Piers Moron" because I suspect it falls into the latter category. Skomorokh 16:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - this is mentioned in the target and, as such, is a valid search term. Also, it is used as a search term several times each month. This nickname is routinely used by Ian Hislop both in Private Eye and on national TV. It is recorded in reliable sources.[1][2][3]. Finally, redirects are value-free - see WP:RNEUTRAL. Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Yes, redirects are value-free, but they still must observe WP:BLP. Matchups 17:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the point about redirects is that, by definition, they can't be sourced. Consequently, if derogatory, they should point to a target that has adequate sources to stand up the term. If the sourcing is considered inadequate then take it out of the target and the redirect would obviously then fall.Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't see Baba Wawa as a problem; it is popular culture poking mild fun at a major popular culture figure. However, if concerned then that would need to be a separate RFD; it's too late in the process to add it to this nomination. As I have alluded above, if there is an issue then it should be taken with the target. That is where sourcing has to go. Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it may be used in reliable sources, but I don't think this is a particularly useful redirect - anyone searching for it surely knows his real name. Given that it doesn't help much with searches, it appears to be purely derogatory, and I think we'd be better off without it. Robofish (talk) 22:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Retarget to Piers Morgan#Ian Hislop: it may be a valid redirect since it's mentioned in the page, but given that it is a derogatory name, it should redirect to the most clearly relevant section of the article. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Bridgeplayer. I like Giftiger wunsch's suggestion, too. Entirely plausible search term. Uncle Dick (talk) 19:14, 25 August 2010 (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/2010_August_23&oldid=1138577169"