Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 November 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 19[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 19, 2010

User:Camper-mann[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. Alexf(talk) 00:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This was redirect was probably unintentionally created, as the user moved a draft into the mainspace. AFAIK, user pages shouldn't redirect to articles. SmartSE (talk) 18:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or blank the page. I agree with Smartse on both accounts: likely an unintentional side effect, but not an appropriate redirect. 28bytes (talk) 20:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Category Lakes of Polk County, Florida[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. Alexf(talk) 00:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Apparently created in error. If not an error, not a good idea to create redirects to categories Mhockey (talk) 15:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:FAKEARTICLE[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. Ruslik_Zero 19:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This shortcut is to the User page guideline Pages that look like articles, copy pages, project pages. While that guideline has a lot of "is not", "should not", and "is also not" language, it also supports keeping certain content in user space via "Short term hosting of potentially valid articles and other reasonable content under development or in active use is usually acceptable." The term "fake" carries with it a strong negative connotation as in counterfeit, forged, fraudulent, phony, and sham. When the shortcut FAKEARTICLE is used in a deletion discussion, it wrongfully implies that the content up for deletion either is a work that is deliberately made or altered to appear better, older, or other than what it is or that it is a fraudulent imitation of another work that already exists, did exist, or no longer exists. However, the lookalike content guideline for user pages does not say that. The above noted user page guideline also covers more content than just articles, so FAKEARTICLE has additional problems. The shortcut Wikipedia:UP#COPIES already provides a shortcut to the user page guideline. In view of all this, I propose that Wikipedia:FAKEARTICLE be deleted or otherwise disabled so that it is no longer used as a shortcut. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the fakearticle redirect was not intended to be applied to legitimate article drafts, but rather to apply to "pages that look like articles", but are not intended with any reasonable good faith to ever hit the article space. I would support breaking apart the section so that it does not cover so many different cases. Right now that single section covers:
    • Pages that look like articles but aren't intended in good faith for main space (FAKEARTICLE)
    • Copies of old revisions of articles that have been hosted for an excessively long time in userspace (WP:UP#COPIES)
    • Userspace drafts that have become stale and are old to the point of qualifying as "indefinite hosting" (no particular shortcut, there should probably be one)
    • Userspace substituting for project space and holding what amounts to be policy (no shortcut, this one is rare)
  • So I think the problem here is that the section is taking on too many different cases, and has a limited number of redirects, which some editors are misusing. FAKEARTICLE is intended to only apply to non-articles that are masquerading as articles. These are usually heavily promotional in nature, or vanity, and would have no chance in mainspace, and the editor is not attempting to improve them to make them encyclopedic, rather they are happy to have their "fake article" hosted in userspace. Gigs (talk) 15:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • On review, you might be right in that the section probably is taking on too many different guidelines and is operating as a catchall. "Keep - per FAKEARTICLE" isn't something I think anyone would use, which is a reason I don't think it makes for a good shortcut. I still think the shortcut should have less of a contentious tone to make it less likely that it is misused. LOOKALIKECONTENT might work. Your new STALEDRAFT optional shortcut is a more neutral sounding shortcut as well. Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 16:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have created WP:STALEDRAFT to cover the third case in my list above where I think the inappropriate use of FAKEARTICLE was primarily happening. Please encourage people to use that instead where it's appropriate. Gigs (talk) 15:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep widely used, if that usage is incorrect, it should be be corrected.--NYKevin @952, i.e. 21:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. To be sure, people often toss a WP:FAKEARTICLE reference into a deletion discussion about a page that is quite obviously not a fake article, but that's not sufficient reason to delete the shortcut. 28bytes (talk) 23:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep' Why not? WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 03:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep' as I don't feel like fixing the 689 places where this is used. I like the addition of WP:STALEDRAFT and would support removing WP:FAKEARTICLE from the list of recommended shortcuts for the section that WP:FAKEARTICLE redirects to. --Marc Kupper|talk 11:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I understand what the nominator means, and perhaps it would have been better had this short cut not been created. However, it has now existed for a long time, and the possible negative connotations are not strong enough reason to justify the considerable inconvenience that would be caused by orphaning the 689 links to it. Besides, a page which is like an article but is kept indefinitely in user space can reasonably be referred to as a "fake article", whether or not the intention was fraudulent. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - too many old uses of it which shouldn't be broken. However I do see the point, and we could try and deprecate the use (remove the shortcut from the destination), and use eg WP:SHADOWARTICLE instead. Rd232 talk 22:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That could be confusing. A shadow government in the UK is a minority party waiting to take power if they win a majority. That could imply that a shadowarticle is one that's waiting to get notability to make it in main space. I really think FAKEARTICLE is an accurate description for the narrow case I meant it for originally, when someone has a userspace page that looks like an article but isn't actually intended to be in the mainspace in the foreseeable future, but we really need to start prodding people to use it correctly. Gigs (talk) 04:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Huh. Well my first thought was WP:MIRRORARTICLE, but then I thought SHADOWARTICLE had a nice double meaning of either an article hiding in the shadows (FAKEARTICLE sense) or a shadow of an article (STALEDRAFT sense). Your UK politics meaning is not a great problem I think (I'm British and a Radio 4 listener and it didn't occur to me...), certainly less than the current FAKE issue. Rd232 talk 16:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

William R.G. Baker[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 Deleted by Skier Dude as G7 (author request). -- JLaTondre (talk) 19:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

$ony[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 no consensus, with the exception of MICROS~1, for which the result is delete per Uncle G's argument based on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 December 1. Some say delete, some say retarget, some say keep, and as Uncle G rightfully pointed out, the mass nomination is a bad idea. Each redirect may be renominated individually immediately at editorial discretion. T. Canens (talk) 16:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopedic, implausible typos or misnomer, with probably a little POV inserted into what makes these objects more satirical misspellings than other misspellings; I don't know who would search for such terms. Why waste time creating every single redirect for every page on Wikipedia replacing every single 's' with a dollar sign, or use it to create redirects in L33t for that matter? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 10:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't have an inherent problem with these. I'm not sure that we could explain something like "MICROS~1" in Microsoft, without people claiming it was irrelevant trivia. Some of these seem pretty uncommon and unlikely, but some of the more common and interesting ones should be retained. Gigs (talk) 16:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all except Windoze and Phuck: Those two could be a legitimate misspelling from a non-native speaker, and their stats show a fair amount of traffic. As for the rest, I agree with the nominator: implausible search terms with no significant traffic and in many cases POV concerns. And Windoze and Phuck should probably be redirected to Windows and Fuck, respectively, since those are in all likelihood what the searcher is looking for. 28bytes (talk) 22:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your reply. After taking a closer look at the policy you linked to, I have to agree with you on the POV point. I've struck my !vote and POV comment. Your !vote to redirect all of them makes some sense, but since I have no way to know whether someone who types in (for example) "Amerikkka" is someone who saw America spelled that way and wants to know why (in which case the existing redirect would be appropriate) or they are wanting to read the America article and just typed it in that way for some odd reason. Given that, I'm going to change my !vote to keep all (below); the ultimate target for these can be decided outside this RfD. 28bytes (talk) 22:21, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment why don't these target the topics for which they are a creative spelling for? Some of them are actually spelled that way in forums, emails, etc. 76.66.193.160 (talk) 00:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget all to the implied articles. Redirects should only be deleted when harmful and being a Satiric misspelling isn't harmful unless, for example, they are confusing. If there are particular grounds for any specific ones to be deleted then they should be relisted individually. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. The more I think about it, the more plausible it seems that someone would see (for example) AmeriKKKa or Co$ online and come here to find out why they are spelled that way, which the target article attempts to explain. There are a couple (e.g. "phuck") which don't seem satirical so much as simple alternate spellings (and indeed, the target article does not mention "phuck" at all), so those should probably be retargeted. 28bytes (talk) 22:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget all per Bridgeplayer. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 03:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please note the outcome of this previous RfD, as it relates to these "misspellings". :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 07:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - in addition, none of these redirects have been templated by the nominator so editors who may have watchlisted any of these redirects may not be aware of these RFDs. Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to the correctly spelled variants per Bridgeplayer. Also tag the lot as unprintworthy with {{R from misspelling}}. It's more likely someone typing "micro$oft" in the search box is looking for Microsoft than Satiric misspelling. Jafeluv (talk) 09:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all – anyone looking for Microsoft would type in "Microsoft". If someone typed in "Micro$soft", it is likely they were hoping to find an article about the spelling, which is what the current target provides; however, the spellings are not notable or widespread enough to warrant redirects, especially fvck. Also, Barakkk Obama does not even make sense in any satirical way. McLerristarr | Mclay1 06:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all (no objection to renominating those that are not mentioned at the target page) - I think that retargeting to the correctly spelled articles would not help readers as this is not merely a case of poor spelling. The spelling of (most of) these redirects has political or philosophical connotations. Someone who searches for "RepubliKKKans", for instance, most likely is not looking for a neutral, descriptive encyclopedia article about the U.S. Republican Party. -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why not? If I'm reading a web forum where people are talking about "RepubliKKKans", that's exactly what I would type in the search box in order to find out what the term means. Redirecting to satirical misspelling, especially if the term is not mentioned in the satirical misspelling article, is pretty much the same as telling the reader "this is a misspelling, but we won't tell you what the correct spelling is". Jafeluv (talk) 14:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all IMO, per Mclay1. Rehman 15:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Nobody who's going to look for information will use these misspellings. They're appropriate for forums and on Uncyclopedia but definitely not here. Astatine211 (talk) 21:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Plenty of people look for information at these titles, as evidenced by the fact that at least three of them people have repeatedly created actual articles by these titles. Uncle G (talk) 09:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is another hodge-podge mass nomination of things that are not the same.
  • Uncle G (talk) 09:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

User:Pkukiss[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 procedural keep and individually relisted at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 November 24. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 06:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirects or typos, some cross-namespace, some appear to be POV, some as the result of pagemove vandalism. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 10:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy procedural keep and relist individually if required. There are significantly different issues for each and these should not have been nominated together. Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep for now and relist individually. Some I wanna delete, some I wanna keep. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 03:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - in addition, none of these redirects have been templated by the nominator so editors who may have watchlisted any of these redirects may not be aware of these RFDs. Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Bushit[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. Ruslik_Zero 19:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible typo, Bullshit appears to be more appropriate. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 10:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Implausible typo. Also, using bullshit to refer to a political supporter of George H. W. Bush or George W. Bush is not the Wiki way. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguated. Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:45, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Disambiguate, the current disambiguated format seem good. "Bullshit" or any other could be listed in if needed. Rehman 15:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC) Per Black Falcon below. Rehman 01:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The purpose of a disambiguation page is to direct editors to existing articles which share the same name, not to replace the search function by linking to pages which mention the title, are related to the title, or are possible misspellings of the title. -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

P:BEP[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 all except P:BEP. Ruslik_Zero 19:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace redirects with little in transclusions or page view statistics. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 23:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all - cross-namespace redirects without good justification. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:04, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Lenticel (talk) 04:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete last two but Keep P:BEP for now. P: redirects to the Portal namespace are quite common, and merit a wider discussion. If they are acceptable in general, this one should be kept as well. If they are not allowed, all of them should be deleted. Fram (talk) 11:28, 23 November 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_November_19&oldid=1066419126"