Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 July 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 1[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 1, 2012

WP:DNFTT[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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely sure how to move an already started discussion, so I'm crosslisting it here. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:DNFTT -- Avanu (talk) 14:34, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale: This page redirects to a reasonable essay on deescalating conflict, however, this abbreviation is typically used in chat to attack the other editor by blaming them for escalating a conflict. This seems to be at odds with our WP:Civility pillar and our WP:No personal attacks policy. Rather than encouraging this use through a shortcut that facilitates it, I recommend its deletion. Avanu (talk) 17:20, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Original discussion from Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:DNFTT:

    This page redirects to a reasonable essay on deescalating conflict, however, this abbreviation is typically used in chat to attack the other editor by blaming them for escalating a conflict. This seems to be at odds with our WP:Civility pillar and our WP:No personal attacks policy. Rather than encouraging this use through a shortcut that facilitates it, I recommend its deletion. Avanu (talk) 17:20, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • By way of clarification, you're proposing to delete the shortcut, rather than the actual essay? Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:18, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, absolutely right. Also, the redirect seems to have a history of switching back and forth between http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/What_is_a_troll%3F and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deny_recognition
        Personally, my biggest problem with the redirect is that it encourages people to think in terms of "Don't feed the troll", which is a sideways perjorative attack, versus coming up with alternative ways to describe a conflict. If we're trying to encourage people to use civility, it doesn't seem useful to have shortcuts that encourage just the opposite. -- Avanu (talk) 20:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Then this discussion should be at WP:RFD rather than here. Hut 8.5 20:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I'm not taking a position on this because I don't know if Avanu's factual premise is correct, i.e., how much this shortcut is used in "chats". However, if the consensus is to delete the shortcut itself, we need to also delete the reference from Wikipedia:Deny recognition's shortcuts box.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:33, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good question, is there some way to do a scan of Wikipedia to see how many things are linked to that redirect page and it's twins? The only reason it caught my attention at this moment was because of two instances where some editor was ranting at another editor and calling him a troll and linking to this. Typically when I see people say "Don't feed the troll", they are just being dismissive of someone else. -- Avanu (talk) 21:22, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I used Special:WhatLinksHere to check WP:DNFTT and WP:DFTT. It looks like there are about 1,050 pages linking to those two. About half are archives. They appear to all be Talk pages with just a couple exceptions. -- Avanu (talk) 00:47, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as per nom. My personal experience is that the shortcut is unhelpful to the project. --Surturz (talk) 06:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as no evidence or policy-based reason has been presented to support deletion of two redirects (WP:DNFTT and WP:DFTT) that have existed for six years—where is a list of examples of abuse? Any policy/guideline/essay/redirect could be abused, but when that happens attention should focus on the abuser, not the page that was misused. Wikipedia is not a group-hugging exercise where trolls are encouraged in the hope that niceness will make them see the error of their ways. It is often important to DENY recognition and a simple reference to DNFTT can be all that is required to alert good editors that further engagement would be counter productive. Re the "history of switching back and forth" mentioned above: that was due to a GNAA advocate who was eventually indeffed after becoming a little too blatant—they were apparently trying to undermine WP:DENY (see its history and talk). Johnuniq (talk) 08:04, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, actually I did present a policy-based reason. WP:Civility, which is not merely a policy, but a core policy aka Wikipedia Pillar. As far as evidence, I did provide the link above to Special:WhatLinksHere. I'm not going to go through a thousand pages, but I'll posts a few quotes for you, however, out of context it is less likely to make sense. I get the feeling that it will clearly support my position that it is used in a dismissive fashion. If WP:DENY is the guideline to give people, why do we need to rephrase it as "Do Not Feed The Troll"? I'm not advocating for people to be perfect in Wikipedia. To quote the mayor from Ghostbusters: "Being miserable and treating other people like dirt is every New Yorker's God-given right." Fortunately for us, Wikipedia has a policy that allows us to still be miserable sods, but we're supposed to at least not be jerks. -- Avanu (talk) 14:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Quotes from Special:WhatLinksHere
        As I wrote elsewhere, by virtue of his inability or unwillingness to understand what we're telling him and reply coherently, WP:DNFTT seems to be the best course of action when dealing with Pumpie. Constantine ✍ 18:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC) from User_talk:Pumpie
        WP:DNFTT is a good policy to follow. Ignore, and block if necessary. --NeilN talk to me 07:32, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
        Which leads to the question of whether invoking WP:DNFTT is in fact feeding the trolls or fanning the flames. Obotlig (talk) 20:28, 2 June 2012 (UTC) from User_talk:NeilN
        And, basically, what is your point? You persist in being argumentative for unclear reasons -- noted on your talk page recently. Like, are you a troll? Others can continue to indulge you, but I'm cutting you off. Corticopia 04:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
        Corticopia, you don't speak for other editors. You have not torn through any statements, in fact you are resorting to argumentum ad hominem, argumentum ad metum, straw man (red herring) and several other fallacies and not even addressing the issue. There is no "POINT". I am being argumentative because we disagree; what is your point? It should be clear that my assertion that Americas in NOT America is not literal, but rather has to with connotation and precedence. By the way, are you, corticopia, a troll? I find it humorous that the only way you can back out of your fallacious statements is by calling me a troll, and avoiding the issues. I for one am glad "you are cutting me off" as I'm tired of your hearing your fallacious ad hominem attacks. Deepstratagem 04:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC) from Talk:Americas/Archive 1
    • Keep per Johnuniq. Shortcuts don't insult editors, editors insult editors. Nobody Ent 12:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wrong venue List at WP:RfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've crosslisted it there. People should be able to make it here from there. Honestly, since people have already weighed in, I believe I would need to be a lot of complicated things to actually move this to there. Does that crosslisting suffice? -- Avanu (talk) 14:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy close per Wrong Venue, as SmoJoe explains. But before relisting at RFD, remember: An essay, or a shortcut, or an article, can't make us uncivil. Achowat (talk) 13:55, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are right that essays and whatnot aren't what make people uncivil, but why would we encourage the use of terms that are uncivil? WP:DENY has a more neutral tone than WP:DNFTT. Part of changing the way we interact is through changing the words we choose to express ourselves. If I refer to you as 'My esteemed colleage from Pennsylvania' rather than as 'a douchebag troll', it sets a different tone entirely. While DNFTT doesn't plainly show the word 'troll', the implication is still there. I guess I'm just thinking that civility starts with how we label each other. -- Avanu (talk) 14:29, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • The reason your argument falls flat, methinks, is because WP:DENY exists. It's softer and used frequently. Not only that, but WP:DNFTT doesn't mean anything to anyone. It's just a string of letters that brings you to WP:Deny recognition. The problem arises when people use [[WP:DNFTT|Do not feed the trolls]] which could just as easily be [[WP:DENY|Do not feed the trolls]]. Removing the redirect doesn't solve any of the problems. Achowat (talk) 17:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Cunard (talk) 19:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is per Thryduulf. While marginally incivil (and only marginally), the cost of breaking the many links throughout the project and all across pagehistories is much too great. Rossami (talk) 22:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. (although I'd prefer it to be a double redirect via Wikipedia:Do not feed the trolls. Or even better: m:What_is_a_troll?#Dealing_with_trolls). People feeding trolls are contributing to excalation of a conflict. They *should* be told "do not feed the trolls". Nowhere near enough evidence presented that this shortcut itself has caused problems. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm generally strongly supportive of maintaining a high standard of civility, and I don't find this uncivil. The essay they link to specifically deal with clearly bad-faith users, and unlike other redirects / templates with questionable names, I don't recall seeing this widely misused to attack contributors on the other side of a dispute. It's a succinct summary of an approach to dealing with vandals and trolls. wctaiwan (talk) 16:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:RNEUTRAL applies. But I don't think there's anything explicitly uncivil about the acronym—it can mean whatever you think it means. It depends on your point of view. Even if "WP:DFTT" goes away, I can still cut someone off and call them a douchebag troll. I agree with Nobody Ent: Shortcuts don't insult editors, editors insult editors. Braincricket (talk) 14:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Criticism of the United States[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 Criticism of American foreign policy. JohnCD (talk) 21:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect reflects a political attempt to describe all criticism of the United States as "anti-American" and is inherently non-neutral.

While there are multiple different interpretations of "anti-American" listed at that article, all sources roughly agree that the term primarily refers to prejudicial hatred of the United States of America, and is also used in a non-neutral, political way to discredit criticism of the United States. (This is also consistent with the introduction at List of anti-ethnic and anti-national terms.) The article on anti-Americanism is primarily about the phenomenon of anti-American feelings, and does not directly address criticism of the United States.

I think an article should be created at Criticism of the United States which describes specific criticisms and critiques of the United States, both from internal and external parties. At that point, it may be worthwhile to merge Criticism of American foreign policy into Criticism of the United States if appropriate. Augurar (talk) 17:40, 1 July 2012 (UTC) Augurar (talk) 17:40, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: After some further thought, it might be better to create "Criticism of US government and policies", redirect "Criticism of the United States" there, and merge "Criticism of American foreign policy" into there. Augurar (talk) 18:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Template:United States[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 both this and Template:United States 2. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect doesn't make sense to me. It is a huge leap for me to think that anyone who looks for a template about the United States would obviously be looking for a template to United States political divisions. I think it would make more sense for this to go to something else more general if we keep it at all. Kumioko (talk) 18:42, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment it makes some sense to me, since it makes the US primarily its top level political divisions, as the Articles of Confederation would have it. As for whether we should keep, retarget, or develop this, perhaps it could be redeveloped for the main topics of the US? 70.49.127.65 (talk) 03:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 17:22, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Petara[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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in article, and unlikely to be added - see Talk:Formula One Group#Petara. Peter E. James (talk) 09:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 17:13, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – The redirect makes no sense. There is no connection between the name of his yacht and an article about one of his business holdings. Senator2029talk 04:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

12345[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 disambiguate. I have started a disambiguation page, but it could do with work. Thryduulf (talk) 12:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target; presumably numerous possible meanings. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:59, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • 12345 is the zip code for Schenectady. Notable zip codes such as 90210 are commonly created as disambiguation pages. It appears that a relatively new user tried to stub this page in the same manner. He/she could only find the one meaning, though, so the page was quickly turned into a straight redirect. It has been in that state since 2008. I was able to find a few other examples of straight zip-code redirects - 90291, for example. It does seem to be an uncommon practice, though. Disambiguate if there are other notable uses of that 5 digit string. Otherwise, I'm inclined to just leave it alone. Rossami (talk) 23:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • While not currently specified, it's the code some idiot would have on his luggage, but it's ' the code to the shield that protects Druidia.' Dru of Id (talk) 07:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment with someone less than familiar with English, this is a viable search term for counting. (or for a child to use). 70.24.251.208 (talk) 05:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 16:47, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 70.24.251.208 makes an interesting point, how about a DAB that lists it as the zip code, and the counting use? Monty845 18:11, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is also the MPAA certificate number for 1947's Song of the Thin Man. Dru of Id (talk) 15:59, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Numerous possible meanings" is actually a pretty good rationale for disambiguating instead of deleting. There could be a dab page that lists the postal code, counting/number and other possible uses. Jafeluv (talk) 10:40, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate since there are numerous possible meanings Djflem (talk) 06:50, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Jada Stevens[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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not clear this person merits a redirect, and more importantly, the redirect imparts no useful infomation, there is a single (unsourced) sentence in the target page that reads "Adult Film Star Jada Stevens is from Snellville". Hairhorn (talk) 03:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator. If Jada Stevens is notable, then write an article on him; if he is not notable then the redirect is at best pointless, and worst it misleads readers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2012_July_1&oldid=1091632866"