Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 July 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 19[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 19, 2012

Cheap Shit[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 and salt. Jafeluv (talk) 07:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This title has nothing at all to do with expenses. While it's several years old, it's such an implausible redirect that I can guarantee that nobody will search for it when they want to learn about expenses; the pageviews are surely people who are going for the redirect itself, not the page to which they're sent when they follow it. If I understand correctly, it was redirected just so that it could be protected from being used for vandalism; given its age, I wonder if it might predate the software fix that enabled page creation protection. No objections if you have a good idea for a different target; I just can't imagine one, since Sewage bill and Utility bill are redlinks. Finally, note that it's fully protected, so you'll likely be unable to change the target by yourself. Nyttend (talk) 19:33, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:SNOW - No, no, and no. --Nathan2055talk - contribs 19:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and re-salt. Clearly unhelpful. Recommend salting, as it was previously "salted" using the old system prior to its redirection. BigNate37(T) 19:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Salt as above -- Selket Talk 23:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • retarget to Tat (consumer item classification). Almost all the uses on Google I'm seeing are describing something as "cheap shit" meaning worthless or tacky - pretty much exactly whac is meant by the British English term "tat". Deletion is preferable to the current target, but obviously a second choice behind retargeting. Thryduulf (talk) 00:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was not aware of the term "tat" until now. However, it does not sound like it's a good fit: you could call poorly manufactured power tools, computer equipment, fast food, "cheap shit", anything of inferior quality in context really, whereas you couldn't call those things tat. Our article on tat is a mess but I think I'm correct in assuming that tat is a very specific form of merchandise? It's hard for me to imagine someone searching "cheap shit" and being satisfied learning about tat. Then again it's hard for me to imagine any target of this term to be useful; perhaps I am biased against the term for its tone. BigNate37(T) 01:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Salt Offensive redirect pbp 15:18, 1 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.

Pakophilia[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. With keep arguments here based mostly on the fact that it makes sense, the actual benefit is unclear and the prevailing argument is not to prermaturely propagate neologisms, because rooted more firmly in wikipedia policiy. Tikiwont (talk) 08:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a made up word, the article on it was deleted and this redirect serves no purpose whatsoever. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep: the word literally means Pro-Pakistan sentiment as explained on the current article's talkpage and is a good redirect for anyone searching by a literal term. The delete reasoning applied when it was the title of the article, but now it is not and is a reasonable redirect. There's no reason to delete. Also per WP:R#KEEP, redirects are cheap and should not be deleted without a good reason. None of the WP:R#DELETE condition applies on this one. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
R#DELETE section 8 "If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name, it is unlikely to be useful" Given this word only exists in wiki mirrors it is obscure indeed. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You should read it fully: "In particular, redirects from a foreign language title to a page whose subject is unrelated to that language (or a culture that speaks that language) should generally not be created. Improbable typos or misnomers are potential candidates for speedy deletion, if recently created." This does not categorize in that. It is the term having the literal meaning, not an obscure synonym from a different language. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not seeing your point there, it is a made up word what has that to do with foreign language? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:44, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Read the description.. it refers to foreign language synonyms in particular. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But it is not a foreign language synonym, it is a made up wikipedia word. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So it is not covered by that criteria. And it is not a "made up" word, rather a direct meaning of that and hence a good redirect. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:15, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
TG those are two entirely separate lines in the policy. And it is a made up word, or please show me a dictionary which has it in. I see no usage in any book[1] nor newspaper articles[2] This word was made up on wikipedia and is only found in mirror sites. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, whether it is a neologism or not the redirect is getting uses (over 20 when it didn't exist in June for example) and as the clear meaning of the term is the subject of the traget article it's not incorrect. The evidence presented above shows that it's not in the way other content either so I fail to see what harm this is doing so deletion would seem to be lacking in benefit. RFD#DELETE does not say that all redirects from obscure synonyms are useless - the evidence shows that this redirect is used and thefore useful. It is worth noting that TopGun is the creator of the redirect and it's earlier incarnation as an article and Darkness Shines was the most vocal call for deletion at the AfD. A line in the target's history suggests that there is or was an interaction ban between the two parties. I haven't looked into details of that ban, but the above exchange would violate many such bans. Thryduulf (talk) 18:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The IBAN was lifted after discussion at ANI --DBigXray 18:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The peak daily viewership of three is easily explained by the article creator and a couple new page or recent change patrollers. I saw 430 non-wikipedia google hits for the term, and the best ranked ones were blogs, mirrors and empty automatically-generated forums. Now I know that's not proof per se, but I am failing to find any supporting evidence that this term has ever actually existed. BigNate37(T) 18:37, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Instead of trying to wiki-lawyer the Redirect guideline, let's apply some of our own reasoning. Why would we keep a redirect like this? I don't think there is enough subject matter to have an article on Pakophilia, at least not while Pro-Pakistan sentiment exists. Furthermore, it makes sense as it stands. Now, what is the harm in keeping this redirect? If editors start linking this term, we will be propagating a neologism—but perhaps that can be addressed by marking it {{unprintworthy}} so it falls in with our typos and other non-publishable redirects (that won't stop people from linking it, but we have plenty of misspelled redirects that could be linked in theory). In addition to that, it only makes sense if you're familiar with the greek suffix -philia. Generally you'd introduce a redirect term in the article so that readers would not wonder how they got from point A to point B, but this term seems to be an uncommon neologism so any attempt to do that may be original research. The only way to fix that is to wait and see if the term gains popularity off-wiki first.
That said, deletion is my stance, at least for now. Weighing up the pros and cons, my point of view is that "well it's not harmful, and it makes sense" is the best reason for keeping this redirect, and that does not justify the potential confusion this redirect introduces. Breaking in new neologisms belongs elsewhere, not on Wikipedia. BigNate37(T) 18:32, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Editors of encyclopedia our efforts must not be on creating new non existent terms based on our likeness or count the google hits produced by Wikipedia mirrors. But to cover those terms that are notable and are widely discussed. besides this redirect is not of foreign language and R#DELETE section 8 applies here. --DBigXray 18:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's not hurting anything, and given the established existence of terms such as Russophilia, Francophilia, and Indophilia (and the multiple reliable sources for the use of "Pakophobia"), it's not surprising that someone wanting to learn about love for Pakistan would guess that such a term exists. The purpose of redirects is to help readers get to the pages that they want, and when a specific redirect does that harmlessly, we shouldn't get rid of it entirely. Nyttend (talk) 19:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • My contention is that it is harmful if the article never uses the term because of potential confusion, and that it's not possible to justify using the term in the article lead when we can't establish that it's actually in use. If you can address that concern, I will withdraw my support for deletion because you make a good point. BigNate37(T) 20:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addressing several points made since my last comment, 'Harmless' is a very good reason to keep a redirect as they are so cheap, and even if they are harmful that has to be weighed against any benefits to having the redirect - this is harmless and has benefits so the equation is simple. All the talk about foreign languages is irrelevant as this is not a foreign language, that criteria exists because consensus is that we want redirects like Cymru but not ones like Gweriniaeth Tsiec (Welsh for Wales and Czech Republic respectively), English synonyms and neologisms are entirely different. Redirects don't need to lead to bolded terms in the lead of articles, as it stands almost everyone who finds or guesses the existence of this redirect will know what it is already or immediately from the context of the target, if it comes into widespread use then there will be people who would benefit from explicit mention but by definition the widespread use will justify that mention. Finally redirects don't need to be verifiable in reliable sources because they are not articles, what matters is just that they are useful (and redirects that are used and point to relevant targets are by definition useful). Thryduulf (talk) 21:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia redirects should not be a way to promote one's neologism. Redirects should not be a loophole to WP:NEO or WP:NFT. -- Selket Talk 23:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Selket above. The word is a neologism and we shouldn't be promoting its use. It is troubling to do a google search and see that various blogs have picked up the term from an early version of a Wikipedia article and quote it as "I recently came across this term ..." The term seems to have little existence prior to the creation of the original article and we should get rid of the redirect as well before we do more harm. --regentspark (comment) 19:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another detailed analysis by an uninvolved user that should come into consideration [3]. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Redirects do not necessarily have to be actual search terms. They can include plausible or unlikely search terms too, and this actually qualifies as one. I've seen far more unlikely redirects than this. Mar4d (talk) 10:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Per WP:DEL#REASON this redirect needs to go, not only is it a made up word "Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes)" and not only is this a "neologism" it cannot even be sourced as one. Facts, not fiction (talk) 15:48, 26 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.

SJB[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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:10, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could plausibly refer to any number of institutions named for St. John the Baptist, a handful named for Saints John Bosco and Jean de Brébeuf, as well as the San Juan Basin and probably lots more; however, WP:DABABBREV introduces enough ambiguity about the value of a dab page that I decided to take this to RfD rather than boldly writing one. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 01:51, 12 July 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, Nathan2055talk - contribs 19:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per the others. If nothing else with the initials "SJB" existed, this title would be a perfect redirect for the high school, and the only problem with it is that it can mean the other things. Such a situation is precisely the reason that we have a system of diambiguation pages. Nyttend (talk) 19:43, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with disambiguation. It's a common and sensible course of action for any TLA. (Yes, I meant to link its dab page.) BigNate37(T) 20:05, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've gone ahead and created a disambiguation page over the redirect.[4] I did not remove the RfD notice, because I would prefer someone look over my work before this discussion is closed. I'm rather rusty. As for the nom's reservations regarding WP:DABABBREV, I believe this is a situation worthy of some discretion. Most schools, and certainly all those that I added to the listing, use their initials from time to time in official and unofficial capacities. I felt that noting this prominently in each article would have been biting off more than I could chew for tonight, and omitting schools that I saw in searches using the initials would be worse than simply not following the DAB guideline to the letter. Anyways, I would appreciate someone look over my work for mistakes, please and thank you. BigNate37(T) 10:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm at least equally rusty, but my experience is that if you use the {{disamig-cleanup}} template as the footer in place of the standard disamig template then someone from the dab project will fix it up within a few days. I fully support disambiguation if I haven't said that already. Thryduulf (talk) 13:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks. It's still on my watch list, if my disambig efforts are kept upon RfD closure, I'll see that it gets tagged and I'll state my concerns on the talk page. BigNate37(T) 21:08, 23 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_19&oldid=1138578265"