Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 May 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 15[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 15, 2010

Squared Away[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 ~ Amory (u • t • c) 04:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really have no idea why this ever was created, I can't find anything in the article about it, can't find anything in Google about it, etc. I really think it has no meaning at all. The fact that it's being redirected to 4chan and that seems just as equally unlikely a target is just icing on the cake saying "I see no meaning behind this redirect". Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 16:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - See the redirect's talkpage, also. I can't figure out the point of this redirect. If this stays, why not redirect WP:Cube root to Elephant? That would make just as much sense --Jubilee♫clipman 17:16, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A google search shows that "Squared Away" is the name of one of the minigames in Mario Party 5. Equazcion (talk) 17:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to disambiguation page or delete - I have drafted a DMB page for consideration though I'm not enthusiastic about it. Whatever, I see no reason to keep it as a redirect to Mario Party 5 as it is not mentioned in that page. Bridgeplayer (talk) 19:36, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedia:GOOGLE[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 ~ Amory (u • t • c) 04:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Based on discussion here. moɳo 00:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep it as it was before. And if the above discussion link is archived, see my comment there. —fetch·comms 00:36, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. User:Mono is wanting to change it to point to WP:WikiProject Google, a new and little-used (possibly inactive) project. But the existing redirect is widely-used and has been used in hundreds of discussions over the past several years, so changing it will indirectly change hundreds of users' comments; furthermore, users using the redirect in discussion and expecting it to point to WP:Search engine test will encounter confusion if it points elsewhere, which is exactly what happened to me here (see the P.S. part of the comment). If someone wants a way to reach or reference WikiProject Google easily, there are alternatives that can be used without taking over this longstanding redirect. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It wasn't exactly used in hundreds of discussions (in response to Rjanag above). A look at "what links here" shows maybe 35 pages that use that redirect. It's not entirely impractical to change them all, even if we have to do it manually. I actually think changing to Wikiproject Google makes sense, so long as that's an active project. That is the question though. But if it is, "Google" is a tad specific for a redirect to a search engine info page, and makes more sense going to a wikiproject by that name. That's generally the practice, AFAIK. Equazcion (talk) 00:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just counted 157 pages in the Talk namespace, and over 250 in the Wikipedia namespace (mainly AfD debates). And there's still the issue of people trying to use it now getting confused. As for the appropriateness of the name, the search engine test is commonly known as the "google test", so this redirect makes perfect sense. I don't see any necessity to change it to point to some page that almost nobody knows about. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • And the project isn't really that active. —fetch·comms 03:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - no reason to change the path of a widely used redirect. Seems disruptive to me; what good will come out of changing an established redirect and messing up hundreds of pages, not to mention confusing many users? Try for WP:WPGOOGLE, WP:GOO or WP:GOOGLEPROJ as redirects to the Google project. Airplaneman ✈ 11:52, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a convincing reason is needed to retarget an existing short-cut and the case has not been made out. Bridgeplayer (talk) 12:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep i.e. point to Wikipedia:Search engine test. Changing this venerable shortcut to point elsewhere would be far too disruptive. Per Airplaneman, there's no reason not to create another shortcut; q.v. WP:GOOGLEHITS --Jubilee♫clipman 17:09, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is. There's no logic (and even less clue) in changing an established redirect cited in discussions and widely used as a shortcut when WP:WPGOOGLE or something similar would suffice and a hatnote can be added to the current target of WP:GOOGLE. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (probably speedily). Redirect has pointed to SET for four years. Changing it now would be silly. –xenotalk 03:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "WP:COMPANYNAME" generally refers to WikiProject of the name in question. Having this different could confuse new users, and WP:GOOGLETEST seems like a clearer name, anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zarel (talk • contribs) 05:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't have a lot to add to what's been said. WPGOOGLE is what I would type if I were making a wild guess to get the wikiproject. - Dank (push to talk) 15:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedia:PEDO[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 Deleted and Create-Protected (nominator closing debate and archiving) Jubilee♫clipman 19:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - PEDO is far too inflammatory a term to use as a redirect to the project page. Create-Protection also, if necessary. Jubilee♫clipman 00:13, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged with db-self as requested on my talk page (although I did not quite create it), so you can just speedy delete it. Pcap ping 02:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get it. This seems like a perfectly rational and appropriate redirect. At least to me it does. Can nominator please elaborate on this? I know it's been deleted, but I'd rather see it recreated again. __meco (talk) 07:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When someone listed it at the article, User:Risker reverted with the summary, "Undid, sorry, but I really think it is MUCH better to force people to use the full word when linking here, "pedo" is very derogatory in a lot of the world". Someone else noticed the existence of the redirect later and tried adding it again, and I reverted citing the previous attempt, which is when the nominator brought the redirect here. It may seem strange to say "pedo" is derogatory while "pedophile" isn't, as if pedophiles would actually demand you use the full word when referring to them. Nevertheless, "pedo" is only used as an insult (AFAIK), while "pedophile" at least has clinical uses. Equazcion (talk) 07:23, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That argument makes only half sense. Since very many shortcuts do not in themself constitute an actual word it is generally understood that if such coincidental conjunctions should occur, that does not signify or signal that they could be abused in any significant or detrimental manner. So WP:FU doesn't give anyone much gratification when they want to use it to say "fuck you" to someone. With WP:PEDO redirected to Wikipedia:Pedophilia it links to a page which deals squarely and neutrally with the problem of pedophilia among Wikipedia editors and the considerations and guidelines for dealing with that. I just don't see how that could be abused. Such knee-jerk interventions and corresponding rationales that we see on display here basically serves only the purpose of solidifying and promulgating the sense of hysteria associated with the hysteria in some quarters with respect to this particular subject. __meco (talk) 09:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Answered on Meco's talkpage --Jubilee♫clipman 14:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Pedo" wouldn't be coincidental, though. If "pedo" redirected to "pedometer" then you'd have a point. But in this case, the derogation doesn't come from some coincidental meaning -- it comes from the intended meaning. We'd be using a shortening of the word "pedophile" as a shortcut to it; and a shortening of "pedophile" is exactly where the colloquialism comes form. Abuse potential might be one concern; so is the potential to inflame a discussion when it's used. But IMO it gives the page an extra air of derogation when listed there, when avoiding the appearance of that has already been a pretty big concern for this topic. Equazcion (talk) 16:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Since it is obviously causing upset, and it is just a short-cut, then deletion is appropriate. I would add that WP:PED is also an existing short-cut and this doesn't carry the same baggage. Bridgeplayer (talk) 16:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well it's already been Speedied and Create-protected so this section could probably be archived now. OTOH, it is useful to have a further opinion: thanks --Jubilee♫clipman 16:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - at least for me (using old Monobook :p), typing WP:PEDO in the search box gives me suggestions, with the main one being Wikipedia:Pedophilia. Redirects are to save time, and give a common name to things. A great example is WP:UNGOOGLE which redirects to Wikipedia:Purging Google search results. The redirect is a lot shorter, and also clear to the meaning of the page. I might not know that removing search results is called purging, but if I try to search for a common term "ungoogle" I get the page I need. WP:PEDO saves 6 characters, and has the exact same lettering as WP:PEDOphilia. Ignoring the connotations of the wording, this redirect simple doesn't help. 2¢. :) Avicennasis @ 17:03, 16 May 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_May_15&oldid=1139987690"