Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 August 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 5[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 5, 2010

Volumetric Production Payment - VPP[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, R3. Lenticel (talk) 01:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term. No one is going to search for this article by typing out the entire name of the article, followed by a hyphen and then its acronym. This redirect was recently created and there are no links to it. SnottyWong soliloquize 22:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:HOTTIE[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 Kept. There is no consensus to delete. Wikipedia redirects to user essays are not unknown. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect meets WP:RFD#DELETE criteria 6 and possibly criteria 2. In addition, it is potentially embarrassing to the project, as having a "WP:" redirect generally implies that the material is a Wikipedia guideline or policy or is in some way endorsed by the community (or at the very least exists in the Wikipedia namespace, which it doesn't). I can easily imagine mention of "WP:HOTTIE" making it into another Wikipedia smear piece by Fox News. If the target isn't appropriate for project space, neither is the redirect. There was a previous RfD 3 years ago which resulted in no consensus. I believe our standards have matured a bit since then. I don't mind having some humor on Wikipedia (in the proper context), but this content isn't even funny, just potentially embarrassing, IMO. Kaldari (talk) 22:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - redirecting from project space to user space is a bad idea. It gives the impression that the target has some form of official standing which, of course, it has not. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:EVULA comes to mind...meshach (talk) 23:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:EVULA is exempt due to WP:EVULA. Kaldari (talk) 23:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep page, keep redirect Most excellent page, with a redirect that's conveniently easy to remember. Oh yes, I can easily imagine all sorts of horrors at Fox "News", but if one of its blowwaved bloviators took this as Official Wikipedia Policy or whatever, that too would be hilarious. (Just how afraid are you people of Fox "News", anyway?) -- Hoary (talk) 14:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No one has suggested deleting the essay. Kaldari (talk) 21:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both We're volunteers here, we do hard work, we deserve a little laugh now and then to break the tension and encourage us to continue. Should anyone, FOX news included, take it seriously, it just makes them look (more) foolish... Dekkappai (talk) 18:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No one has suggested deleting the essay. You can read it all you like. This is just about deleting the WP: redirect. Kaldari (talk) 21:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete redirect per Bridgeplayer, keep userspace essay. In my opinion, WP: shortcuts should not redirect outside of the WP namespace except where truly necessary. —Train2104 (talk · contribs) 19:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This redirect is linked from 36 AfD discussions, almost all BLPs, which is a bit concerning. We should be treating BLPs with at least a semblance of respect and professionalism, not arguing over whether someone is hot enough to be included in Wikipedia (even as a joke). Kaldari (talk) 21:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Does a link from an AfD really mean that the AfD doesn't treat the BLP with at least this semblance? Are living people -- notable or not, hot or not -- so sensitive as to be psychologically (or otherwise) damaged by the very occasional attribution/allegation of heat among all the earnest "!votes"? -- Hoary (talk) 00:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Believe it or not, some people don't appreciate being sexually objectified by a bunch of anonymous Wikipedia editors while the fate of their online reputation is being decided. Some people would actually prefer to be treated with respect and discussed as a human being rather than as a "hottie". Kaldari (talk) 19:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think being "sexually objectified" by being called a WP:HOTTIE is anywhere near as objectionable as the counterpart WP:FUGLY, and here we are discussing this one. (That one was kept, too, by the way.) Jafeluv (talk) 14:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both. per Ignore all rules, Wikipedia is not censored, and the supreme decree of the TINC against the no-fun brigade. Yworo (talk) 22:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete redirect per Kaldari and Bridgeplayer. Fun is fun, but these shortcuts have the appearance of official sanction. Let's remember we are writing for readers here, not just Wikipedia insiders. Neutron (talk) 00:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, they have the appearance of official sanction, if the reader either doesn't click on them or does click on them and is very slow witted. Are we actually writing for normal readers here, or for those who either move their lips as they read or are searching for opportunities to vent their indignation? ¶ It's not as if GlassCobra were inviting people to euthanasia hotties. -- Hoary (talk) 00:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the redirect - it does create the veneer of an accepted guideline or policy. Off2riorob (talk) 13:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Why are we even having this discussion? Rebecca (talk) 04:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I won't even start on some similar examples this might give rise to that there would be general revulsion at. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-redirect to something like WP:FUN#Humor and put a link from there to the essay. Matchups 13:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe we can keep this one, as I've added a little more straightforward language (i.e. {{humorous}}) to the target page that indicates that this is not intended to be taken seriously. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe that helps a little. You might have an even better argument if the "humor" template replaced, rather than being added to, the "Official Cabal Decree" template. The latter is a big inside joke, which we can probably live without on pages that are linked to from redirects from article space. Neutron (talk) 23:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It would have worked if the user whose userspace it's in didn't revert me. SchuminWeb (Talk) 11:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this is a significant development. I thought that you were making a good effort at rescuing the page. However, the revert shows that it is intended to be taken with some seriousness and that underscores the need for deletion. Bridgeplayer (talk) 15:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, I think the essay is kind of amusing, but if the user whose userspace it's in is unwilling to leave the humor tag on it, then the redirect has got to go (i.e. delete, changing my !vote), and I'm also tempted to nominate the essay to MFD on the same grounds once this process is complete. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Potomac Education Foundation[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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What does this have to do with Victor Berlin? AirplaneProRadioChecklist 21:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, according to this article the Potomac Education Foundation IS Victor Berlin. As of 2008, it had total revenue of $1,817,763 and total assets of $2,215,658 according to this website. From the IRS Form 990 on that website, the only people to earn an income from this venture were the President & Executive Officer (who is Victor Berlin) and the Chief Operating Officer (who is Janice Berlin, of the same address). And THAT is what the Potomac Education Foundation has to do with Victor Berlin. Perhaps I will add this to the Wikipedia article, thanks for making me sit down for a moment to actually do the research. JamaUtil (talk) 21:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it to redirect to University of Fairfax, since that 990 indicates that is the DBA name of the Potomac Education Foundation. JamaUtil (talk) 21:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Sex-[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 to Sex (disambiguation). —fetch·comms 02:37, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Originally an article about the Latin number prefix "six-", its contents were moved to Wikitionary and the page was turned into a redirect to Sex, and later to Sexual intercourse. I think this redirect should either be deleted because it's really unlikely that users looking for sexual intercourse will type in "sex-", or it should be retargeted to Number prefix. エムエックスさん 話 20:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Sex (disambiguation) where the previous content was merged. Previously an article so we need to keep the history for GFDL reasons; retargetting the redirect is the easiest way of achieving this. Last month this redirect got 4991 hits showing that it is an entirely plausible search term. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per User:Bridgeplayer. –Grondemar 22:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per above. Kaldari (talk) 22:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Uncycploedia[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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely unlikely misspelling. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Not implausible. Redirects are cheap. meshach (talk) 20:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, "p" is two letters away from where it should be, so I agree, that would be an extremely unlikely misspelling. エムエックスさん 話 20:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - we don't need to worry whether or not this is an unlikely misspelling. It doesn't meet WP:RFD#DELETE, deletion may break links in external sites and it is harmless. There is no benefit in deletion so we should leave it be. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—likely-enough misspelling, no harm keeping. –Grondemar 22:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Extremely unlikely misspelling. Kaldari (talk) 22:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if in doubt about whether a misspelling is likely , keep it -- safer and easier & doesn't wast time and space arguing about deleting it. DGG ( talk ) 23:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Midland Mall[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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing redirect. While Rhode Island Mall was indeed called Midland Mall at one point, there's a Midland Mall in Michigan which hasn't proven notable enough for an article. Given that both links for this redirect were in reference to the Michigan mall, this redirect should be outright eliminated. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and place a hatnote on Rhode Island Mall if required - since this mall was once called 'Midland Mall' this is a valid redirect. The presence of another, nn mall, doesn't mean that we should conceal such information as we have. Assuming that the Michigan 'Midland Mall' is mentioned in a locality article then a hatnote solves the problem. If the Michigan mall is so nn as not to be worth even a locality mention then it certainly shouldn't be affecting this redirect. Bridgeplayer (talk) 12:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I agree with Bridgeplayer; add a hatnote if possible, but keep the redirect. エムエックスさん 話 20:35, 5 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_5&oldid=1142587910"