Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 November 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 21[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 21, 2013.

NPR-A[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 NPRA. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 15:11, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss, as "NPR-A" commonly refers to the National Petroleum Reserve–Alaska. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 21:26, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate. The articles make it clear they are both referred to using this acronym. Thryduulf (talk) 21:28, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have a strong opinion either way, but would we want NPR-A to redirect to NPRA? Chris857 (talk) 21:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to NPRA and tag with {{R from modification}}. --BDD (talk) 22:03, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate. As a European molecular biologist, NPR-A makes more sense to me as a redirect to the receptor, while I've never heard of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska. I suppose it is hard to say what is more common or expected to readers, so a dab page is the safest and most useful bet. --cyclopiaspeak! 12:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thryduulf and Cyclopia, could you clarify whether you want a separate NPR-A disambiguation page established or whether retargeting to the existing dab is sufficient? It's small enough that splitting it in half really doesn't make much sense. --BDD (talk) 17:21, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to NPRA. Afterwards, if enough articles are eventually added to NPRA with the "NPR-A" title, then NPR-A can become a disambiguation page (with a reference to NPRA in its "See also" section, and vice versa.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:02, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate to both the receptor and the agency. I think both are not that commonly known to have that acronym to warrant a hatnote use.--Lenticel (talk) 00:11, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to NPRA with redirect hatnote. At present since we have just two major usages for NPR-A this predicates against a disamb page. Having both forms at the same page will aid readers carrying out searches. The Whispering Wind (talk) 20:28, 25 November 2013 (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.

Google Search for Android[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. --BDD (talk) 21:49, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is in place. Only 4 pages link to this page. better clean up! Compfreak7 (talk) 18:13, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - per WP:RFD#KEEP reason 2. Low link count is not a reason to delete a redirect, and someone may type out the entire title of the redirect when searching for this topic. Steel1943 (talk) 18:48, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - no policy reason per WP:RFD#DELETE to delete. More fundamentally, this is the correct title of this application and the stats show that this is an entirely plausible search term. I think that the article would be better at this title but that's probably for WP:RM. The Whispering Wind (talk) 19:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - plausible disambiguation. ViperSnake151  Talk  21:29, 21 November 2013 (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.

Widrow[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 (non-admin closure) — Keithbob • Talk • 21:03, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are no pages that link to this page or use the redirect. Better clean up stuff. Compfreak7 (talk) 16:37, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflict note: My reasoning is almost the same as BDD's reasoning. Steel1943 (talk) 19:39, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A good rule in general: if there is only one article to which a surname could apply, a redirect on the surname to the article is a useful redirect. Not only is that the case here but the redirect also bears the correct template to explain this. The instructions at the top of the page are explicit that a redirect without pages pointing to it doesn't necessarily mean that the redirect should be deleted. As others have pointed out, a search on "Widrow" makes this redirect useful all by itself. Universaladdress (talk) 23:24, 22 November 2013 (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.

Wikipedia:Fag[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. I close this as no consensus defaulted to keep and I do not see how it can be closed differently. The headcount shows 22 deletes (including those who advocated move to WP:FAG with subsequent deletion) and 16 keeps. All voters provided good arguments, even though some of them got a bit too excited during the discussion. There are good policy-based arguments from both sides. The delete voters argue that the redirect is potentially offensive, can be misused, and is little used; the keep voters reply that it is still used (although not often), has never been misused, as far as we know, that the fact that it can potentially be misused is not a valid reason for deletion, and that it is a valid redirect to Find-a-Grave. None of the policies has a clear precedence. I state therefore that consensus has not been found in the discussion. Note that WP:FAG is not a part of this discussion (though I believe it has zero chances to find consensus to be deleted). Misusing of WP:fag and/or WP:FAG is likely to be a blockable offence and should be reported immediately. Ymblanter (talk) 14:06, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While not in favour of political correctness, and even though I am from the UK, where a 'fag' is historically a cigarette, I find that the word has intensely distasteful connotations, being used as a slur against LGBT folk. It is not censorship to suggest that we should discuss this with a view to rendering the current implementation obsolete and replacing by a better shortcut, if a shortcut is required. Fiddle Faddle 14:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. The use of this shortcut is unlikely to have anything but negative results. Also, anything that makes it harder to add Find a Grave spam to the project is a good thing. Resolute 14:32, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Probably little used, no benefit in keeping a questionable redirect. --cyclopiaspeak! 14:39, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Change to Delete – I created it two years ago, but can't remember the rationale for doing so. – S. Rich (talk) 14:53, 21 November 2013 (UTC) See below. 00:18, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per my arguments at the wrongly-closed RfD for WP:CUM; yet another offensive term used as a shortcut with no intrinsic connection to what it leads to. The case here is even stronger, as per the grok.se stats, this receives only a dozen hits in the last 90 days, and i nthe period before that drops to sometimes 2-3. There are also zero internal links to this, other than this listing and some discussion about it over the last day or so at DRV and at Jimbo's talk page. Tarc (talk) 14:41, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Created in good faith but seems very little used, no incoming links, few page views so it probably doesn't matter if it's deleted. On the other hand, you can find lots of "offensive" redirects, if you're determined to go looking for them. WP:WOP redirects to Wikipedia:WikiProject World's Oldest People--offensive to Italians? Don't even get me started with WP:JAP Then there's WP:FUC which is one of the most commonly cited policies on Wikipedia, but resembles a certain four-letter word. WP:FAP links to, of all things, an obsolete method of protecting the featured article on the main page. Feel free to troll through User:Scott/Notes/Shortcut table, which lists every possible acronym up to three letters, unfortunately it doesn't go higher than three. I'm sure you can find more evidence in there of how horrible Wikipedia is (though I suppose there aren't that many offensive three-letter words for the acronym-happy to stumble upon). 117.203.226.183 (talk) 15:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete I guess. I think the existence of a few of these proves little except for the effects of random chance, but we shouldn't go out of our way to promote them either, once they've been found. Since it was basically unused before, it would be just a bit POINTY to elevate it to an official redirect for the Find-a-Grave since there are better shortcuts in use. 117.203.226.183 (talk) 02:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Aside – Fag has many uses, and I probably looked at the page before creating the redirect. (Also see Fagbug.) It is interesting that WP:QUEER goes to NPA, and we also have a Queer studies article. – S. Rich (talk) 15:27, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - several other alternative short cuts are available so there is no need to keep one that could give offence. The Whispering Wind (talk) 16:16, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cautious keep. According to the dab page Fag, Find a Grave is indeed referred to as FAG. I'm all for respect towards LGBT persons, but I'm wary of deleting a potentially useful redirect because of political correctness. It doesn't appear to be used a great deal, so it may not be a huge loss, however. Is there any evidence that this has been misused (i.e., "This admin deleted my page because he's a WP:FAG!")? --BDD (talk) 19:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're setting an unreasonable threshold; one does not have to wait for someone to do something naughty with an offensive term in order to take care of it; it is simply offensive on the face of it. Tarc (talk) 20:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm following an established threshold, not setting one. We don't delete articles because they may be vandalized. Why treat redirects differently? --BDD (talk) 20:48, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I never broached the idea of vandalism; you did. It does not matter how or in what context the title "WP:FAG" is used in this project. I am supporting deletion because of the fact that it exists at all, regardless of what is at the other end of the shortcut, is offensive. Tarc (talk) 20:54, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Any redirect may be used inappropriately, so this is not a reason to delete any of them. This redirect is used and is the most logical shortcut for the Find A Grave project, so there is no policy based reason to delete it. If any user misuses it then deal with that use in exactly the same way as if they'd misused WP:FAC or called another user an offensive name without linking to anything. Thryduulf (talk) 21:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a bit of a strawman argument, as "potential misuse" was not an argument put forth by the nominator. The objection is to the very existence of the 3-letter shortcut. Tarc (talk) 23:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    And I'm demonstrating that there is no reason to delete it. Thryduulf (talk) 23:41, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You're picking one reason to oppose it, a reason that neither I nor the nominator are supporting; hence "strawman". That it is gratuitous and needlessly offensive is what most calls to delete appear to be based on, though. Tarc (talk) 02:29, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well if you want me to be explicit about it, I'm opposing deletion because it's neither gratuitous nor offensive, and even if it were that would not be a reason on its own to delete it. It could be used in a way that is offensive, but in that situation it is the user who needs to be dealt with not the redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 07:31, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, it isn't the usage, it is the existence that most are arguing for deletion. You're certainly entitled to your opinion (and the upside of you giving it is that you're ineligible to close this), but you're still staking a position against something that most here aren't talking about. Tarc (talk) 13:53, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"it's neither gratuitous nor offensive" - You need a reality check. If i witnessed someone quote this acronym to anyone in a serious manner i'd be pushing for a block or community sanction against them. It's use violates WP:AGF in the most obvious way imaginable and is clearly homophobic. It is already controversial to quote WP:Dick to someone. Do i have to create a link to WP:TWAT and quote that to the Fag users, just to show them how unacceptable it is? This acronym stinks of attacking people just because you can. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 12:16, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per BDD and Thryduulf and mainly because "F. A. G." seems to be an appropriate abbreviation for "Find–A–Grave". Steel1943 (talk) 21:56, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Redirects are cheap. It was created in good faith. As much as I would like to rid Wikipedia of "Find-A-Grave" itself, as long as the project exists there's no policy-based reason to delete a genuine acronym and reasonable shortcut. Like WP:CUM, people are seeking out trouble where none exists. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:10, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fag? Unneeded and a common disrespectful epithet. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:23, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Like WP:JAP, WP:WOP, and WP:QUEER? WP:DICK is "a common disrespectful epithet", and that one isn't an acronym, but rather an excuse for editors to call each other dicks. Why is "fag" the anomaly here? Joefromrandb (talk) 00:26, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please remember that each page of any description on WIkipedia stands or falls on its own merits. Other items do not set a precedent for or against the one under discussion. Fiddle Faddle 00:39, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's nonsense. These redirects are all acceptable or they are all unacceptable. I vote for the former. Saying that WP:QUEER is acceptable but WP:Fag isn't is hogwash. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • While you are busy washing your hog, let me inform, perhaps remind, you that LGBTQ is used proudly by many organisations, where the "Q" refers to Queer. LGBTF is never used. Even so, that is not relevant to the case you are seeking to make. Wikipedia has long held that every page is independent and that the retention or deletion of one page sets no precedent for the retention or deletion of any other page. WP:QUEER seems obsolete, though. Its original target has long since morphed into another page. It seems to me that it requires repurposing. Fiddle Faddle 08:19, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, I see. Certain gays have reclaimed the word "queer", so that makes it OK, but no one reclaimed "fag", so that one must be deleted. The hog is still quite filthy. Joefromrandb (talk) 08:43, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Fag" has also been reclaimed but that doesn't mean it's now okay to use. It also doesn't take the sting out of a word that signals someone may want to harm you, take away your rights and liberties, fire you, kill you etc etc. Fag is a loaded word and even in the UK many now universally understand the context as being anti-gay rather than anything else. Sportfan5000 (talk) 08:56, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you cannot see, or refuse to acknowledge the issue of how offensive this word can be then there's really nothing else to say. I'll leave it to your better angels to figure out. Sportfan5000 (talk) 21:04, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • ^The Keep argument, as above and elsewhere relies strongly on WP:Otherstuffexists which should be rejected (both in the argument above that there are unrelated redirects and in the argument below that we should "regularly" keep abusive redirects). The claim that here Fag is useful is also demonstrated to be false -- its not even sourced, nor an acronym. "FAG", which is irrelevant to this discussion, could suggest an ambiguous acronym (according to our unsourced disambiguation page) but it also has the pejorative defect, and is also unsourced, and it is not an acronym for the actual name of the project it points to, nor would likely be used anymore then Fag is used (which is virtually not at all). So, salt this. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:11, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf and others. KonveyorBelt 01:46, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Needlessly antagonistic. By some commenters here there should be no problem with oodles of highly offensive swears which are also not broadcast on public television. Wikipedia is hostile and uncivil enough without making it more so. Sportfan5000 (talk) 03:35, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not the pesence of a redirect that makes Wikipedia antangonistic, but the actions of users who do not require (or afaict use) this redirect to antagonise. Thryduulf (talk) 07:31, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • We may have to agree to disagree. Simply put this is an offensive word being used in a fake encyclopedic sense, not in the article about the word fag. It's well and arguably understood as a perforative for LGBT people and gay men in particular - people have been traditionally marginalized and discriminated against. Common sense would suggest that if we don't need to use it, we don't; and it causes deep offense, it does, then an alternative that can easily be found and used should replace it. Sportfan5000 (talk) 07:45, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • You appear to be completely missing the point that redirects are not just for linking to, they are used by people to find the page from any of the many ways of searching Wikipedia. Deleting an in-use redirect disrupts those uses for zero gain - with a logical shortcut like this not only will people remember it, but people who don't know of it will expect it to exist. While it is widely known that calling someone a fag may offend them, there is no evidence presented that the existence of WP:Fag as an acronym is actually offensive. Thryduulf (talk) 10:32, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • No evidence that Fag is a disrespectful epithet? See, [1] The claim that putting "WP:" in front of it makes it unoffensive is without evidence. There is also no evidence that people will suddenly not be able to find-a-grave without it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:11, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • I didn't say that at all. I said that there is no evidence that the use of the three letters Fag in context as an acronym for find a grave is offensive to anyone. The "WP:" does establish context that this is a Wikipedia shortcut not a lexical word in exactly the same way it does for every other shortcut on the project (this is why sentences like "Ask at WP:Row" make sense and sentences like "Ask at Row" do not). Deleting any redirect that is in use inconveniences the people who use it, which is why there is a high bar to delete in use redirects: we need to have a good reason to inconvenience people. As yet not a single good reason to do so has been presented in this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 11:39, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • Repeating the same unsupported claim that Fag becomes unoffensive by putting "WP:" in front of it does not improve your argument. Your claim of inconvenience is absurd - we use Fag because its convenient for us to use Fag. Oh well, then put yourself out a little (but really not at all) because Fag is a pejorative. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:03, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Repeating the same unsupported claim that "WP:Fag" is offensive does not make it true. "Fag" in some contexts is a pejorative, and people using it as such should be dealt with appropriately. "Fag" is almost all contexts is not a pejorative (See Fag) and people using it those contexts should not be penalised because the word may be offensive if used differently. In exactly the same way, people using WP:Fag in a pejorative context should be dealt with appropriately. People using WP:Fag in other contexts should not be penalised because it may be offensive if used differently. In and of itself (i.e. with no surrounding context) no word or acronym in the English language is either offensive or inoffensive - it is simply a word (this is why dictionaries are not obscene publications). If you regard convenience as "absurd" then you need to educate yourself about the purpose of redirects, about why there is a high bar to deleting redirects and about the norms of RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 12:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Repeating your argument is not making it any better. It is simply a word that is commonly offensive. Moreover, it is your argument that is absurd not conveneince: 'we must have Fag because it is convenient, even though its a common epithet' is ridiculous. Planting the flag for 'pro-Fag' is why the Pedia gets into instruction creep because apprently some cannot recognize that avoiding common pejoritives for people is generally just good sense. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:04, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is another case where we have to weigh up WP:R#DELETE#4 ("The redirect is offensive or abusive...") against WP:R#KEEP#5 ("Someone finds them useful"). I think the balance comes down in favour of deletion in this case. It seems from the stats that not many people do find this redirect useful. "Fag", to state the obvious, is a highly offensive slur against a group of people based on their sexual orientation. In response to the suggestion that people will realise it is an acronym, I would point out that it isn't in ALLCAPS, as an acronym would conventionally be. That makes it appear that it is referring to the word, rather than an acronym. Neljack (talk) 13:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Neljack puts it well, so ditto that reason.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:09, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. The word is primarily a notorious term of abuse in a vast portion of the English-speaking world, and no substantive reason to keep such a little-used redirect has been suggested. Rivertorch (talk) 23:31, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The only logical reason for keeping this would be if Find a Grave were also commonly referred to as FAG. It serves no utility here, and arguing that it does flies in the face of common sense, not to mention common decency. - MrX 23:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:FAG also, in case that was not clear. - MrX 20:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • ETA: Several commenters have asserted that no policy based reason for deletion have been articulated, which a review of this thread plainly shows to be false. The more I examine this, the more I realize that this redirect is should be deleted. Here are some of the reasons:
  1. The redirect is WP:Fag not WP:FAG. Acronyms are almost never written in Title case, except in the rare cases where they fall into common usage, for example radar and scuba. While I accept that the redirect was created in good faith, it is faulty on WP:MOS grounds. Arguments such as "it seems to be just a simple shortcut (Find A Grave = FAG)" and "...because "F. A. G." seems to be an appropriate abbreviation for "Find–A–Grave"." are based on a false premise.
  2. WP:MOS#Abbreviations clearly advises "...avoid making up new abbreviations, especially acronyms".
  3. WP:ACRONYMTITLE advises "Acronyms should be used in a page name if the subject is known primarily by its abbreviation and that abbreviation is primarily associated with the subject." (emphasis added; see #7 below)
  4. WP:Acronym overkill advises "Wikipedia guidelines for article titles call acronyms "ambiguous" and recommend avoiding them."
  5. The name of the target page is Find-A-Grave famous people so a logical acronym would be FAGFP, not Fag.
  6. The shortcuts listed on the target page are WP:FINDAGRAVE, WP:FIND-A-GRAVE and WP:GRAVE. Conspicuously absent is WP:Fag. Apparently, for nearly two years, no one thought it was a good idea to add this to the target page's list of shortcuts.
  7. Find A Grave does not refer to itself as FAG, and certainly not Fag.
  8. WP:Redirect#Reasons for deleting #3 advises that redirects that "[are] offensive or abusive" can be considered for deletion.
  9. WP:NOTCENSORED refers to content and readers, and is obviously not intended as a carte blanche for creating, maintaining or preserving offensive material just because we can, or in furtherance of some fringe anti-political-correctness agenda. (see also: WP:COMMON).
    1. Almost every reason articulated for deleting this would apply also to WP:FAG. I would have created that would doing so not be pointy. I will create it if this closes as keep (as it should). Nobody who has argued that "WP:Fag" should be deleted has said that "WP:FAG" would be acceptable so this is irrelevant.
    2. Irrelevant as this is not an article.
    3. Irrelevant as this is neither and article nor the name of the page, it is a project-space shortcut redirect.
    4. Irrelevant as this is neither and article nor the name of the page, it is a project-space shortcut redirect.
    5. WP:FAGFP would be logical yes, but it does not mean that this redirect is not also logical. The RfD standard is "plausibile", not "most logical" or even "most plausible". People use this redirect and it is clearly connected to the target, so it is unarguably plausible.
    6. Irrelevant as people use this redirect. Only a few shortcuts are commonly listed, so that says nothing about whether people think this redirect is a good idea or not. Even if they did think this was unsuitable for linking (and no evidence has been provided to show this) that doesn't stop it being a useful shortcut for people to use for navigation by other means (which they demonstrably do).
    7. Irrelevant as people use this redirect to find the project. Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks does not refer to itself as "MAF" yet that is still a good shortcut.
    8. A strawman argument, nobody is arguing that this cannot be considered for deletion. Redirects that are offensive or abusive are often kept at RfD though because their usefulness outweighs their offensiveness, which is exactly what is being argued here.
    9. Another strawman argument. Nobody is arguing that this was or should be created, maintained for preserved just because we can, nor is it being argued that it was or should be kept as part of any sort of agenda. Your referencing WP:COMMON here is odd - if it were common sense that this should be deleted there would be no opposition to doing so. WP:IAR only allows for ignoring rules where that would improve the encyclopaedia, it is disputed that deleting this would improve the encyclopaedia and no evidence has been given to back up the assertion that it would. Thryduulf (talk) 17:01, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you someone creates a WP:FAG redirect if this one is deleted, then youthey will likely be regarded as someone who doesn't LISTEN, preferring instead to be DISRUPTIVE and POINTY.
    • @Tarc: read what I actually wrote: "I will create it if this closes as keep". Thryduulf (talk) 09:54, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I concede that I misread your comment. BTW, my name is MrX. Tarc is much nicer than me. :) - MrX 15:21, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your refutation of my arguments are mostly based on the unfounded idea that Wikipedia: space pages are somehow excluded from our policies and guidelines. They are not.
  • Your claim that "people use this redirect to find the project." is not supported by evidence. In fact, as the statistics show there is very strong evidence to the contrary.
  • Years of living with the humans has convinced me that there are number of people who are not capable of common sense. Common sense is common, not universal.
  • So far, the arguments in favor of keeping this redirect are mostly based on the (false) claims of lack of any policies proscribing such a redirect; WP:OTHERCRAP; WP:REDIRECTSARECHEAP; it hasn't been abused; it was created in good faith; we shouldn't delete redirects for reasons of political correctness; and me 2. None of these reasons are grounded in policy. More importantly, no one has put forth a credible argument for how this redirect, Fag, improves the encyclopedia, which I thought was our common purpose. The dogged determination to keep the redirect with zero evidence of it's usefulness to the project is troubling, but unfortunately, not surprising. - MrX 18:20, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why the phrase "famous people" should be there in the target page name in first place. The website name is just Find A Grave and it is patently obvious we are only adding articles about notable people to WP. That FAG:s definition of "famous" might not exactly match our people notability criteria is irrelevant. jni (talk) 13:40, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Find a Grave-find famous graves is a subset of the Find a Grave. I have personally found notable people by using the broader Find A Grave Search Form. Wikipedia's definition of notability is not necessarily the same as Find a Grave's definition of famous. - MrX 15:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've changed my view from Neutral to Delete. As this discussion has more postings than the actual use of the redirect (over the past two years), I hope it can be closed so that editors can move on to improving the project. Keeping it or deleting it won't change people's attitudes. (I was living in Palm Springs when I created it, and the idea that this version of the FindAGrave acronym would ever generate so much talk never occurred to me.) – S. Rich (talk) 00:18, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see any evidence that this redirect was created in bad faith; it seems to be just a simple shortcut (Find A Grave = FAG) Canuck89 (what's up?) 03:30, November 23, 2013 (UTC)
    • I don't believe anyone has suggested it was created in bad faith. The relevant question is whether the alleged benefits of this particular shortcut outweight the blatantly negative connotations of the word (which btw is in sentence case, not in all caps as you suggested—did you even try WP:FAG before !voting?). Rivertorch (talk) 06:13, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No policy-based reason for deletion articulated. If the term were gratuitous and intended for harm, the offensiveness would certainly be relevant. As is, it's reasonably consistent with naming conventions, so per NOTCENSORED, we don't go out of our way to eliminate otherwise-reasonable redirects just because they happen to be naughty words. Jclemens (talk) 08:48, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes we delete the per WP:R#DELETE#3 and together with WP:NOTCENSORED this is neither article nor content, so your argument is without policy basis. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:11, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that is that the redirect is not being used in an offensive or abusive way. As I said below if this were being redirected to the LGBT project and could not be used in any other helpful way then yeah it should be deleted but that is not the case here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:58, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That does not provide a rationale for Fag, which is not an acronym, and is a common epithet. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:03, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean it is not an acronym? Many words can be used as acronyms, in this case it is being used as one and it is in wikipedia name-space nothing more. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:44, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This has already been gone over in detail, by multiple posters. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:25, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move Currently if you type in WP:FAG to the search bar, you end up at WP:Fag. If you link to it as I do here, it is a redlink. The thing that makes this redirect different from WP:WOP and others is that people expect an acronym to be in all caps, and while that is not the only factor at play here, I think it is what is making the difference. By and large our redirects are in uppercase. If you type WP:fag to the search bar you'll end up at the uppercase redirect if we have only that. So let's go ahead and move WP:Fag to WP:FAG without leaving a redirect, then keep that (altering any links to it accordingly). We should be adults and recognize that a TLA can stand for more than one thing, but there's no reason not to make things as regular as possible. Wnt (talk) 18:08, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Except that according to the disambiguation page the abbreviation FAG is ambiguous, which is why it has a disambiguation page. And it is not regular to choose ambiguous names, according to WP naming conventions. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:21, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see someone created the uppercase version [2] so now it is OK to get rid of the lowercase version entirely. I don't understand the comment about disambiguating WP acronyms. Wnt (talk) 17:32, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'd advise watch-listing WP:FAG, as one editor has declared an intent to create it if this RfD does not close in the manner he prefers. Such a creation would obviously be seen as the height of disruptive pointiness, IMO steps should be taken accordingly. No one is above the consensus of his peers, not even administrators. Tarc (talk) 21:36, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's exactly the opposite of what I said! I said that if this closes as keep, then I will create WP:FAG. Thryduulf (talk) 09:54, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Move to WP:FAG, Unlike WP:QUEER that cant really be used to stand for anything and is offensive if redirected to the LGBT project (Proposed by editors), this redirect can be an acronym for things and therefore useful. If this redirected to the LGBT project then yes of course I would take issue but it is being used in a positive way. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:14, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Er, no. It is potentially offensive that way it is anyway. It makes me wonder about a redirect to the National Institute of Great Grey Elephant Rangers, where one omits the 'o' since it is lower case. How inoffensive would that be? Fiddle Faddle 10:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well if there were an actually organisation which used or was otherwise widely known by an "NIGGER" acronym then it would get an entry at Nigger (disambiguation) (NIGGER currently and correctly redirects to the Nigger article; WP:NIGGER has never existed). This is of absolutely no relevance to this discussion though as we are not dealing with a redirect to the article about a theoretical organisation that may or may not use an acronym with the same letters as word that is used almost exclusively as a highly pejorative term, instead we are dealing with a project-space shortcut to a WikiProject that actually exists and happens to use an acronym with the same letters as a word one of the many meanings of which is regarded as offensive in North America. That the offensive meaning bears no relation to the context of the page is also highly relevant. Thryduulf (talk) 12:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this in its current helpful and non-offensive usage and create WP:FAG as well. jni (talk) 13:30, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I would think that it's incontrovertible that it's offensive, but I'm curious if you can present any evidence that it is helpful. - MrX 15:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Surely the all-caps version is less offensive and more useful than non-caps. We are talking about an acronym after all. If the consensus of this discussion is that the shortcut is not offensive enough to delete, it would make sense to create WP:FAG as well. StAnselm (talk) 07:07, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not helpful, could easily be seen as offensive. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 15:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, with extreme prejudice. We should not cater to those who are desperately trying to feel offended, not in our content and not in our project. Most importantly, this goes squarely against the core spirit of WP:IAR: We should not worry about rules. If this is deleted, it endorses the worst type of censorship: self-censorship. The deletion would basically tell users to never edit innocuously along what makes immediate sense but to always second-guess all contributions based on what someone with the iron will to be offended might read into it. Ludicrous. --85.197.20.10 (talk) 12:09, 27 November 2013 (UTC)— 85.197.20.10 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep. It's just a word, and like most other words, it has multiple meanings. If we find someone using it in a manner intended to cause offence, we already have ways of dealing with that. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:48, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Notices of this discussion have been posted at Wikipedia talk:Find-A-Grave famous people & Talk:Find a Grave. (With these belated notices in mind, I suggest we leave the discussion open for a few more days.) – S. Rich (talk) 16:44, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Were it created or being used disparagingly, I would certainly say it should be deleted. As it stands, I see no reason for deletion, per JClemens. Killiondude (talk) 22:52, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If there were any evidence of this being regularly or blatently used in an offensive way, or if it had apparently been created to serve asn an epithet, I would feel differently. But anyone who sees this used, almost surely in a context which has nothing to do with homosexuality and things it might be some sort of subtle insult, need only follow the redirect,\. At that point the purpose and meaning become obvious. Anyone who is still offended after that is IMO needlessly touchy, and the views of such a person do not greatly concern me. Many words and abbreviations can be misinterpreted as offensive. That is not a good reason to avoid them unless they are being used offensively or no other meaning is reasonable in context. I would support ma move to the all-uppercase form. DES (talk) 21:18, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Absurd. We are not talking about many words and abbreviations. We are talking about Fag. As for which people concern or do not concern you, that is gratuitous irrelevance. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:46, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per mr x Pass a Method talk 23:25, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - genuine acronym, and slightly useful shortcut. StAnselm (talk) 02:49, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest Delete possible on the basis of offense to a group of people and completely unnecessary. We don't have links to WP:Chink, WP:Negro, WP:Honkey, or WP:Spastick, and a discussion on these would ensure a snow delete. Let's have a consistent Wikipedia for everyone rather than one with Conservapedia elements and editors who think quoting "Fag" to someone is appropriate or in line with WP:AGF. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 12:01, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Seeing that those words are long there is no possible way for someone to make a legit acronym out of them, as said in the discussion here we have WP:JAP last time I checked referring to a Japanese person as a Jap was highly offensive however the acronym JAP is not being used this way. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:04, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep – it's an acronym, not a word. Any connotations are being assumed, not implied, and I see no sexual, derogatory or controversial matter in what is essentially a shortcut to a genuine template. Technically speaking, it should be using upper-case WP:FAG. I don't think I can take an RfD seriously based upon innuendo or any form of emotion, it's silly to see things which don't exist. Wikipedia doesn't aim to be politically correct and this shortcut clearly wasn't created out of malice, so there are no wrongs to right. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 15:54, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read Gay bashing and the studies done there on the use of words like fag? What is silly is keeping a hardly used redirect, which word has virtually no connection in any of the words few meanings (one of which is commonly offensive, another of which is just derogatory) to "find a grave famous people". Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:56, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Give me a break, the redirect WP:QUEER is hardly used as well so your argument is invalid. Queer is considered offensive to people in the LGBT community yet current consensus is to redirect it to the LGBT project? Why is that redirect not being deleted as well for hardly being used if that is your reasoning? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:08, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERCRAP. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:21, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Have you read Gay bashing and the studies done there on the use of words like fag?" – No, I don't waste my time doing background reading for a trivial RfD. Have you seen QI? Stephen Fry takes and makes at least half-a-dozen remarks per episode which could be considered "gay bashing". Bullying is subjective, as everyone is different with regards to what words they find offensive, and even that varies depending on mood, context and who delivers it. I know gay people who openly use the word "fag" yet loathe the word "faggot", even though they appear to be the same word and have the same meaning. Please, don't make useless emotional pleas to me. My original comment indicates how disinterested I am in them or anyone's feelings. I don't see the word "fag", I see the letters F-A-G. Three letters are simply not worth all the time-consuming boo-hoo printed above, none of it helps improve Wiki or build an encyclopedia, no one is genuinely upset over a shortcut (wimps if they are), and I've wasted more than enough time thinking about it. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 17:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's bizarre that your comment is so emotional about this. If you don't see Fag then you are not addressing the RfD. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:38, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't do emotion and I don't do exploitative rhetoric either. WP:Fag is the template in question. What you see is in your mind. I've addressed it for what it is, and what it aims to be, not what you think it is. Come back to reality. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 17:45, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your emotional rhetoric about "reality," for a basically unused redirect entitled Fag demonstrates the opposite of your claim. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:56, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not capable of emotional towards black and white print on a screen from some bore like yourself which fails to spark my neurons. I'm not changing my mind for you, so you can quit over-investing yourself under my comments. I'd say "get off my back" but I'm sure you'd consider that a euphemism for something. Go find another keep to harass, there's a good chap WP:DGF. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 18:04, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to WP:FAG and Keep. I can see the arguments for deleting this one - it is a bit unfortunate - but against that, it's also potentially useful, and there's no evidence that it's actually been used in an offensive way. Making it all-caps would make it clearer it's meant as an acronym and not as a derogatory term. (As for derogatory shortcuts, we still have WP:DICK, which explicitly is meant as a derogatory term and is used to insult people, yet is somehow still around. I'd delete that one first.) Robofish (talk) 17:20, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (While we're looking for shortcuts to be offended by, I just tested a few and found that WP:SHIT, WP:FUCK and WP:CRAP all exist. I know, OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but those all suggest that mere offensiveness is not necessarily enough to delete a shortcut.) Robofish (talk) 17:27, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For those who think this is offensive I invite them to read over WP:PROFANE, and WP:DISC. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:28, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (and create WP:FAG) - as long as the target page exists at that (or similar) title it's the most obvious shortcut to reach the page, whether it's used as a link or not. It only coincides with the word, which has an offensive use as well as others, and the existence of this shortcut doesn't imply that the offensive use is intended. Maybe discourage linking by not listing it on the target page with the other shortcuts. Peter James (talk) 20:05, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Enough! – I've posted a {{db-author}} on the page. Maybe that will end this. And then someone, braver or more foolhardy than I, can do an ALL CAPS acronym redirect. – S. Rich (talk) 00:09, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, the issue isn't going to be resolved that easily. CSD is only for uncontroversial deletions, and this clearly doesn't fit that criteria. The closer may take into account that the creator now advocates deletion, however. --BDD (talk) 01:43, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In fact I advocated for deletion a bit back in the discussion. – S. Rich (talk) 01:57, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for the future: normally, people try to avoid making connotations when they name things, either in full or by acronym. Seeing as Find a Grave does not call themselves FAG, why should we? Sceptre (talk) 13:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep From the Chelsea Manning article, we still have Bradley Manning and Breanna Manning bluelinks. We reference Santorum (disambiguation). Blue links exist even if they offend people. This isn't the case where someone will be offended that they didn't find gay wikipedians by coming across this search. We have Fag as a disambiguation. This redirect has been here for 2 years. It doesn't need attention. --DHeyward (talk) 20:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:Fag but Keep WP:FAG. It seems FAG is a common acronym for Find-a-grave looking at various genealogy sites and the find-a-grave forums, but always in caps. Not using all caps as is typical with these shortcuts leads me to believe the user was trying to be witty and that is not appropriate. So, WP:FAG should stay, but WP:Fag is no good.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 21:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tarc, TheWhisperingWind, Obi-wan and others above. The benefit of having this redirect seems to be very marginal, and the "cost" (in terms of offensiveness, controversy, etc.) far outweighs the benefit. If someone types "Fag" into the search bar on Wikipedia (and hopefully, they don't), it seems highly unlikely that they are looking for the "Find a Grave" project. Neutron (talk) 22:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If someone types in Fag into the search bar they will come to a disambiguation page. If someone enters in WP:FAG it would be used to reference a wikiproject and nothing more. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete FAG or fag isn't a commonly used acronym in genealogical circles unlike, for example, IGI (International Genealogical Index). There are other WP shortcuts on the page, no need to use one that may be offensive. AnonNep (talk) 05:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Another common genealogical acronym is BDM. For the record, it means births, deaths and marriages not bondage, domination and masochism, just in case anyone is considering creating a WP redirect. AnonNep (talk) 06:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Adding WP:FAG to nomination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk • contribs)
  • Comment Whether others agree or disagree with your addition, hasn't this discussion been running rather too long for a wise addition? WP:FAG itself is relatively recently created, and was created during this discussion, and possibly as a part of it. Fiddle Faddle 19:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That redirect was created by me as a result of this discussion, and it is irrational to add it so late in the game. Keep FAG as well. KonveyorBelt 19:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was not at all appropriate or rational to create that redirect in the midst of a discussion that would logically include it. It is certainly within the scope of the nomination, as well as several delete arguments. Delete all caps WP:FAG as well. - MrX 20:07, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has already about run it's 2 week course why are we letting this be caught up in political BS here? The word FAG is used as an acronym here nothing more, nothing less. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you asking me? If so, please clarify what you mean by "political BS". I'm not aware that politics has entered into this discussion at all.- MrX 20:19, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't pretend that you don't know what I am talking about, you have provided nothing other than your opinion of WP:IDONTLIKEIT to support your case. The acronym is helpful as it is easier to reference when referring to the project. This is what acronyms are used for. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What in the world does any of that have to do with politics? You seem confused. - MrX 20:37, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fag, Cum, Fuck, Shit, Queer they are all politically incorrect words. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
lol. Political correctness =/= political BS. But thanks for admitting your motivations per my point #9 above.- MrX 20:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that some people here are making this into way more of a deal than it needs to be. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:00, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I reverted the addition of WP:FAG - there is already too much discussion, and adding it to this nom will just make things worse. I suggest we let someone close this out, and have separate discussion of WP:FAG.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:47, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • With regard to WP:FAG, since there is tacit approval from the creator to add it to this discussion since they have !voted on it, I add Strong delete to my !vote on WP:Fag Fiddle Faddle 20:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The argument that FAG is the same as Fag is silly. One is a honest, regular, all caps redirect as is the precedent, the other isn't. KonveyorBelt 20:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should be blocked for disruptive behavior for the duration of this discussion, honestly. I didn't notice the creation of the all-caps variant until it was added just now, there is no difference between the two terms, and the suggestion that capitalization makes an offensive term palatable is ludicrous. Tarc (talk) 20:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With the existence of WP:JAP and WP:QUEER, one could argue that this is the case. KonveyorBelt 20:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And the fact that WP:QUEER has proved to still be used as a slur from reliable sources yet it is now a redirect to the LGBT project? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tarc this is not WP:OTHERSTUFF you are saying you are offended as your only reason. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if I find it personally offensive or not; it matters only that in the 21st century, "fag" is generally identified as a derogatory term for homosexuals. I do not believe that a derogatory word should be used to point to a WikiProject, it is as simple as that. User can be directed to the Project just as easily by WP:GRAVE or something similar; as of yet, no keep vote has offered u pa compelling reason as to why a shortcut commonly associated with an obscene word must be retained when there are non-obscene alternates. Tarc (talk) 20:46, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But shortened words that you may find objectionable are being used to point towards wikiprojects, let me phrase what you are saying in another way. Some Japanese editor is highly offended that the word JAP is being used to link to the Japanese wikiproject, the word jap is considered a derogatory term in the 21st century so I don't believe it should be linked to a wikiproject or retained. Or how about the link WP:CUM that just closed as a keep? What makes WP:FAG any different? Oh and if you ask for a Fag in the UK you are not considered homophobic so the word can be used in a positive way. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You do have a point though in saying that WP:GRAVE also would do. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was the one that nominated "WP:CUM" for deletion, and the one that filed a deletion review. The admin who closed that RfD used some the most weak and atrocious logic I've seen in recently memory, so you know where my opinion of the usage of that term lies. As for "JAP", feel free to nominate it, these sorts of things are to be considered independently. Tarc (talk) 21:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How could you not have noticed it? - there's a bit green check mark up above. But in fact, several editors have, in the discussion, suggested and supported the creation of WP:FAG. And suggesting blocks like that doesn't lend itself to civil discussion. StAnselm (talk) 20:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, Tarc, if you want to recommend I be blocked do so at the appropriate venue. KonveyorBelt 20:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Konveyor Belt: If you think that you can exclude an acronym with the exact same letters, in the exact same order, redirecting to the exact same target, after adding the redirect in the middle of the discussion, then I believe that you are sorely mistaken. Best case, you made a major gaffe; worst case, you were intentionally disruptive.- MrX 20:44, 4 December 2013 (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.

User:Teravolt[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. JohnCD (talk) 21:07, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure whether this is allowed. please advise. Guy Macon (talk) 01:53, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Unfortunately not speediable, but misleading and nonsensical anyway. --BDD (talk) 19:10, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have notified Teravolt about this discussion. It is poor form not to notify an active editor about a discussion related to a redirect they created, and even poorer form not to notify them them about a page in their userspace. Thryduulf (talk) 21:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I fail to see how a notice on the user's talk page is substantively better than a notice on his user page. I believe that the Notifications tool notifies you either way. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:18, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is poor form to redirect user page to article. Tagging the redirect page was sufficient notice to user. jni (talk) 16:28, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to User talk:Teravolt instead. The user will avoid a redlink and people who want to interact with them will be quickly transferred to the right place --Lenticel (talk) 01:36, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh. Let's not do this unless the user actually wants to. This seems to be an occasional practice, perhaps for those who neither want a user page or for their names to show up in red, but I personally hate this. It's practically an WP:ASTONISH violation. If I want to find out about a user, I'm generally not looking for their talk page. --BDD (talk) 18:06, 25 November 2013 (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/2013_November_21&oldid=1090409386"