Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 November 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 8[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 8, 2013.

Line of succession to the Mexican throne[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. Thryduulf (talk) 14:22, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 22:48, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I'm missing something the line of succession isn't mentioned in that article. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:27, 13 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.

Slovenly[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 speedy closed as now out of scope following conversion to a disamb page. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 00:31, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned on target page. There are other uses for the word - Slovenly (band) and Slovenly Peter - so it would be better to put a disambiguation page there. Launchballer 17:55, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I have expanded the page to a disambiguation page. Slovenly Peter should not be included, as that is a partial title match, and such are prohibited by WP:MOSDAB. Neelix (talk) 19:00, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant - I'll withdraw this.--Launchballer 19:10, 8 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.

Clamjam[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. I've always heard "boxblock" anyway. --BDD (talk) 00:56, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Misleading. Possibly worthy of a separate article, or a section of Cockblock (if a reliable source — not Urban Dictionary — can be found), but not a simple redirect. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:16, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as obscure synonym. I can't find this slang in Google Books or Google Scholar used in this manner.--Lenticel (talk) 03:47, 9 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:CUM[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 competing arguments here are essentially different interpretations of WP:NOTCENSORED, specifically whether the potential offensiveness of the redirect outweighs its usefulness. The redirect is a logical acronym for the target, more so than alternatives in the view of at least one commenter, and it has a non-zero number of incoming links and hits meaning that it is used, which automatically sets a high bar for deletion. Comments about article content are entirely irrelevant to a shortcut redirect to project space, and the argument that it would offend newbies is also weak given that alternatives exist and it is normally best practice to link to the actual page tile in such circumstances anyway. The point about salting being possible is taken, but plausible redirects should be used in preference in the majority of cases. Accordingly it is exceedingly unlikely that a new user who would be offended would know of the existence of this redirect outside the completely non-sexual context of the page. I therefore find that breaking the existing links and disrupting the users of the redirect caused by its deletion would be more harmful than keeping the redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 14:09, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Er, I think we could do without this one, given the obvious sexual connotation. The target how-to guide already has WP:CMF, which has the vast majority of incoming links (checked via "what links here" vs "WP:CUM" which is used in a handful of places. I can't imagine ever telling a new user looking for guidance on how to upload media to "Please read CUM for more info", though unfortunately this was once how someone answered a helpme request; User_talk:Casaliozzi#Helpme. Tarc (talk) 00:36, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - there is no need to retain a redirect that could cause offence when it is unnecessary since there is a perfectly good alternative. The few incoming links can be easily fixed. The Whispering Wind (talk) 00:52, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not only is Wikipedia is not censored, I call "Creation and Usage of Media files" much more plausible than "Creation and usage of Media Files". Why would anybody take offense over the use of a simple word? If they click the link, they'll know it has nothing to do with cum!--Launchballer 18:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, but that is absurd; there is no practical reason to abbreviate a help guide with an obscene term. We wouldn't direct new users to a help page on Creation and Usage of New Templates via WP:CUNT, would we? Regarding "not censored", I have been quite a vocal proponent of that ideal in the past in certain situations, but it isn't a carte blanche excuse to do whatever you want whenever you like. In situations regarding potentially offensive material, we have to decide what is more important; the necessity to inform vs. the offense the information will cause. When we had the big Muhammad images brouhaha a few years ago, the decision boiled down to whether the offense caused to some viewers was important enough to remove the images. In that case, "not censored" won, as it was judged that the necessity of proving information to the reader outweighed the side-effect of the offense caused. Here? No, the users can be directed by another acronym. There is no necessity argument to make; if "CMF" doesn't roll off the tongue so well, then I'm sure our creative Wikipedians can think of a more appropriate one. Tarc (talk) 18:43, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The redirect does its job well. However, my main reason is that a redirect to a decent page might discourage people more from creating unsightly stuff than a red-link can. Besides, there are other meanings for the word so let's give any searcher that use this shortcut some good faith as well.--Lenticel (talk) 03:22, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but I don't think it does do its job well for the reason that you highlighted - it is ambiguous and hence potentially misleading. Experienced users will use CMF and I don't think it fails to AGF by hazarding that inexperienced editors using CUM are looking for a different subject from the target! The Whispering Wind (talk) 04:25, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete and salt to prevent recreation. I note we do have Wikipedia:FUCK but that goes to a humorous page. In this case, having it as a how-to shortcut doesn't cut it. Tarc's point here is correct - we aren't uncensored, but that doesn't mean we have naked photos of Sunny Lane on her bio, and for the same reason we shouldn't have potentially offensive words as redirects. per Wikipedia:R#DELETE, it should be deleted.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:14, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Lunchballer. Hilariously, WP:CUMF would make the most sense. --BDD (talk) 00:58, 15 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_8&oldid=1085561831"