Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 September 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 20[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 20, 2012

Inexperienced user[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 newbie. Ruslik_Zero 17:02, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice: Original nominator vote refactored by user: Emmette Hernandez Coleman, and resulting text removed by nominator.

Should it be redirected to user (computing) instead? Jarble (talk) 20:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I don't understand why my contributions are considered to be "waste." Are you specifically referring to the redirect pages and disambiguation pages that I've created? Jarble (talk) 20:14, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid unneeded edit wars against Emmette Hernandez Coleman which could deprive the discussion of the context, I will answer on user talk: Jarble ‎ #Inexperienced user listed at Redirects for discussion soon. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:48, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that seems like a more neutral term. I'll retarget it now. Jarble (talk) 00:18, 21 September 2012 (UTC) OK, that seems like a more neutral term. I'll retarget it now. Jarble (talk) 00:18, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jarble, I'm pretty sure you can't just re-target the redirect without closing the RFD, and I'm almost certain that being the creator, you're way too involved to close this. You can of course vote re-target to newbie. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 07:48, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you believe that? WilyD 08:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't the procedure to figure out what to do with the redirect at the RFD (whether to keep, delete or re-target), then after, and not before, we have conciseness, to close the RFD and do it? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 08:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In general, the outcomes of XfDs are usually binding-ish, but there's nothing wrong with editing a page as normal in the interim. Also something like WP:IAR and WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY. Unless you object to the idea of it being retargeted, you shouldn't revert out of some bureaucratic principle. Retargetting a redirect doesn't require a discussion unless someone objects (and never requires coming here), so why would it be a problem? WilyD 08:45, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In all the RFD's I've seen, it's rare that I've seen redirects being re-targeted in the middle of the rfd, and I was pretty sure you weren't supposed to do that. Redirects aren't like content pages, so what you said about editing a page as normal probably wouldn't apply as strongly for RFD's as they would to other deletion discussions, concerning that you can vote to re-target. It could be confusing to change the target during the RFD. To keep the redirect at the new target, would you vote keep, or re-target to new target. To get it back to the old one would you vote keep or re-target to old target. Still you might be right. You make a good point, and that someone disputes my view is itself evidence that you're right. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 09:21, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rare, probably, but it's not worth worrying about unless you think the redirect was a bad one. AfDs often have probems (especially with regards to sources being added) that get solved mid-discussion, it's not a big deal. You can specify "redirect to X" in a comment in you like - a "keep" without a comment as to a target probably suffices for either one. I would argue that voting to retarget here is a bad idea, because it tends to create an impediment to future editing - better to discuss it at Talk:Inexperienced user, so it can be re-evaluated later without an XfD judgement hanging over the discussion. WilyD 10:44, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - useful for navigation, I don't think there's much value here in redlinking to encourage article creation. WilyD 08:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep what? Specify your proposal clearer, please. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:48, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep the redirect Inexperienced user. What else? WilyD 11:18, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    OMG. Keep the redirect to which article? Look on the discussion's header, please. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:12, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Whichever the editors at Talk:Inexperienced user prefer. Imposing a decision from here only makes everyone's life harder in the future, should a different target turn up. It currently points at newbie, which is perfectly good. If editors there later come up with a better target - that's also perfectly good. WilyD 13:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Please, recall the hatnote at WP:Redirects for discussion: "they are deleted by an administrator, kept, or retargeted." To "retarget" is a choice distinct from "to keep". WilyD, do you copy? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand what you're saying, but just because we're allowed to make stupid decisions, doesn't mean we're required to. WilyD 07:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    WilyD - "keep" in the absence of any explicit statement otherwise cannot mean anything other than "keep as it was when it was nominated". any other meaning would be a subject interpretation. Extremely few redirects have active talk pages, so discussions about whether to retarget them and where to usually happen here - invariably so when it has already been nominated. Probably more so than any other XfD, the "D" in RfD means "discussion" not just "deletion" (See for example Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 September 1#Scum Lake), so telling editors to go discuss it elsewhere is distinctly unhelpful. Thryduulf (talk) 20:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This statement is simply false. Keep in the absence of any clarifying statement means "keep" - nothing more, nothing less. That you want to read your own opinion into mine isn't appropriate or sensible. WilyD 07:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Newbie. "luser" as a target would be offensive given the derogatory connotations of that term, but newbie does not have the same issues. Thryduulf (talk) 20:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Newbie, a clearly more neutral target. I agree that unless someone actually objects to the change, it could be made boldly even during the discussion period. Siuenti (talk) 20:42, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We should take any further discussion on weather it's appropriate to re-target a redirect during it's RFD to Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion#Re-targeting a redirect during it's RFD.. We don't want to clutter up this RFD with irreverent combercation, and the talk page is a better place to have this discussion. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:10, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether it points to newbie or luser this is inappropriate, as it forms a sort of "easter egg trap" whereby an innocent-sounding title redirects to one which causes offence. "Inexperienced user" is not an idiom like the ones in the target pages: it is a simple juxtaposition of an adjective and a noun. WilyD appears to be under the impression that redlinks are only there to encourage article creation: in fact, they are commonly used for things which simply don't need to have things located at them. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:50, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not - I'm under the impression that the only reason to delete is that it would encourage article creation, because there aren't any other reasons to delete. WilyD 07:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Encouraging article creation is one reason to delete a redirect but there are others. For example inaccuracy, BLP issues, uselessness, vandalism, being misleading, etc. They do not necessarily apply to this redirect, but they are reasons for deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 16:10, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, I mean in reference to this redirect. WilyD 12:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Thumperward. It's not a commonly used expression and it's meaning depends on context -- "newbie" is generally only used in computer/internet circles. Nobody Ent 11:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    What to do with Experienced user (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), indeed? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No, newbie is not restricted to computing circles. Do you watch a police procedural show called "NCIS"? There the junior member of the investigative team is stuck with the moniker "newbie", which is not because of computing. Indeed, if you read the article newbie, you'd see no such restriction, since the term has been used since the 1850s. -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 21:30, 25 September 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.

Green lumber[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 Green wood. Tikiwont (talk) 09:33, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another ASoUE redirect which has uses unrelated to the series. Retarget to Green wood. 69.111.189.155 (talk) 04:23, 20 September 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.

The Carmelita Song[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 per nom. Ruslik_Zero 18:45, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect refers to something not mentioned in the article text. Maybe retarget to Carmelita (song)? 69.111.189.155 (talk) 01:28, 20 September 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.

Tan fungus[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 18:43, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the same reason as Trained reptiles-- it's a generic search term redirecting to something very specific which is probably unhelpful. I don't know of any appropriate retarget. 69.111.189.155 (talk) 01:24, 20 September 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_September_20&oldid=1050185102"