Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 April 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 24[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 24, 2014.

Aria (Pokémon)[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. Involved close given the backlog and unanimous consensus after a full listing period. --BDD (talk) 18:06, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess Aria and Ariala were names for Clefairy and Clefable in a beta of the first games, but neither of these names are mentioned on the target page, and the Aria redirects could cause confusion, as there's a character of this name in Pokémon Ranger. --BDD (talk) 22:36, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom.--Lenticel (talk) 08:37, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The target sections do not mention any of the terms being redirected to them. The Pokemon Ranger character is not mentioned on the game's article either so retargeting Aria (pokemon) to the game's article won't work.--67.70.140.89 (talk) 16:59, 27 April 2014 (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.

Youngster Joey[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. Involved close given the backlog and unanimous consensus after a full listing period. --BDD (talk) 18:06, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This extremely minor Pokémon character isn't mentioned at the target page or anywhere else, nor should he be. BDD (talk) 22:19, 24 April 2014 (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.

List of Pokémon (0)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 May 4#List of Pokémon (0)

Gary oaks arcanine[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. Involved close given the backlog and unanimous consensus after a full listing period. --BDD (talk) 18:05, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This extremely minor Pokémon character isn't mentioned at the target page, and doesn't seem to be mentioned at all on Wikipedia. BDD (talk) 22:09, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed my vote after seeing the fact that it has been retargeted already. Steel1943 (talk) 22:21, 24 April 2014 (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.

Thunderbolt Pokémon Attack[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. Involved close given the backlog and unanimous consensus after a full listing period. --BDD (talk) 18:04, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This Pokémon gameplay element isn't mentioned at the target article; the attack isn't even unique to Pikachu. --BDD (talk) 20:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all. On Bulbapedia, these would be a full-blown article. We're not Bulbapedia. It's bad enough we've got giant lists of all the Pokemon, but I draw the line at their individual movesets. --NYKevin 20:37, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. The move is not exclusive to Pikachu, nor is it notable enough to be retargeted elsewhere. Steel1943 (talk) 22:22, 24 April 2014 (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.

Cult of the Helix[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 May 4#Cult of the Helix

Seabird 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 keep. --BDD (talk) 16:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No links, useless profane redirect. Pelliesh (talk) 18:31, 24 April 2014 (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.

Bird 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 retarget here keep. --BDD (talk) 16:40, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No links, useless redirect. Pelliesh (talk) 18:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is the best target. People might find out something about the historic harvesting/mining of guano, if we're lucky. Si Trew (talk) 19:26, 24 April 2014 (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.

Bat 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 keep. Note that I've converted Batshit into a redirect per WP:D-R; see my rationale at Talk:Batshit if you're interested. --BDD (talk) 16:37, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only link here is a talk page, and "bat shit" is a very unnecessary redirect. Pelliesh (talk) 18:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - plausible someone would search for it (e.g. see disambig at batshit). If this is deleted, please also delete bat shit for reasons of consistency. --NYKevin 19:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget, and delete the entry at the DAB. Bat shit is definitely not guano, it is the usual solid excrement from a mammal. I don't know what the best retarget would be, feces? It is just wrong at the DAB. Guano is specifically for birds, as far as I understand it, which do not have a separate urinal and anal tract and so produce a combination of both when they evacuate. Si Trew (talk) 19:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to the very first sentence of Guano, bat shit is indeed guano. --NYKevin 19:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

:::Keep. You're right, it says it there, and it is referenced further down. I've never heard mammalian exrement called that myself, but that is just my ignorance, and that is what encyclopaedias are for. Nice call. Si Trew (talk) 19:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Template:R&b[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. Something needs to happen here, so I'm performing an WP:INVOLVED close, and I think "any reasonable administrator" would call no consensus here. Contact me with concerns. --BDD (talk) 19:18, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Like the above, but even worse because it comes with inconsistent capitalization as part of the package. Should be deleted in favor of a consistently-named alternative. (See also the RfD for the similarly-titled "Template:C&w" which just closed as delete.) — Scott • talk 00:17, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. WP:REDLINK content uses should trump in-Wikipedia pipeworking ; Wikiprojects are indicated using "WP" or "WPP" and this uses neither. -- 70.24.250.235 (talk) 04:34, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my arguments for keeping Template:R&B above. There is no harm in this template redirecting to the same target as that one, and indeed other courses of action (including deletion) would introduce confusion where none presently exists. Thryduulf (talk) 10:31, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "handwaving about the possibility of confusion is not evidence of anything" — Scott • talk 13:26, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There *is* harm. It is a non-intuitive shortcut by two accounts (lowercase, omitted "WP"). The harm is that other editors must translate this code to a sensible template name. Not only when using it, but also and more often when seeing this name (reading this name) in talkspace, WP-namespace, or when editing. That we don't see this frustration is no proof of absence. Misformed, non-intuitive shortcuts/abbreviations are a burden for all editors (except those who have learned the hidden code, or have it written on a paper glued next to their computerscreen). -DePiep (talk) 11:53, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my arguments for deleting Template:R&B above. Redirects to project banners should use the conventional "WPXX" format". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:45, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Could be a WikiProject tag or a navbox. I would've preferred the latter, but since it's already established and used, I don't think a change is worthwhile. --BDD (talk) 19:56, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, your writing "could be X or Y" proves the point against keeping! What is the use of a "could-be" shortcut? Why require that editors learn or research which one it is (and note, that includes also moments when an editor reads it)? All this while the straight solution is at hand. (That solution is not to rename it {{R&B (disambiguation)}} ;-) ) -DePiep (talk) 06:54, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is absolutely the most important point here: ambiguity should not be tolerated, let alone encouraged, in the internal components of our system. Disambiguation pages and redirects from typographical errors exist for the benefit of readers, who can't and shouldn't be expected to operate in a systematic way. We as editors and programmers, on the other hand, benefit significantly from operating within a regular and predictable environment that facilitates our working practices. — Scott • talk 13:14, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DePiep and Scott, there are many established titles and redirects we'd probably have to toss if we followed your arguments to their logical conclusion, such as Template:Db. If you're serious that there should be no ambiguity in such names, this might be the start of a lengthy crusade. --BDD (talk) 17:05, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OSE argument, won't respond. -DePiep (talk) 17:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's your right, but I'm not the one who brought up other stuff. That part, I suppose, was more aimed at Scott. If you're suggesting "all X should be deleted" rather than "this should be deleted," you're talking about other stuff already. --BDD (talk) 18:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You mean Scott is introducing OSE? I do not read that. What I do read is an argument against ambiguity. To which you have not responded. I find that sloppy reasoning. On top of this, since you do closures I wonder whether you are able to throw OSE arguments out unweighed. -DePiep (talk) 18:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's what I mean. An editor can mention other stuff without making an OSE argument, but if you phrase an argument in broad terms instead of the item(s) being discussed, you're arguing in relation to other stuff. I'll use an example from AfD, since that's an area this comes up a lot. Suppose Fredy (Portuguese footballer) were up for deletion. If I say, "This guy doesn't meet GNG/NFOOTY," that's fine. If I say, "Footballers aren't notable. This page should be deleted," would I not be making an OSE argument? (Stupid argument, of course, but bear with me for the sake of discussion.) --BDD (talk) 18:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
BDD, re If you're serious that there should be no ambiguity in such names, this might be the start of a lengthy crusade. - God, grant me the serenity to accept the redirects I cannot change, the courage to change the redirects I can, and wisdom to know the difference. There are large parts of our system we simply cannot change for historic reasons. We can draw a line in front of those; everything else we should do our best to make sense out of, for the ongoing benefit of those who follow in our footsteps. — Scott • talk 21:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose. I can understand the drive to get rid of the newer redirects, but this one's almost three years old. Is that "historic" enough? If not, what is? --BDD (talk) 23:04, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When I said "historic reasons" I meant "presents an extended record of earlier use", not simply "is old". — Scott • talk 19:16, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As with {{R&B}} above (must have "WP"), plus the horrible lowercase deviation. No editor should be required to do research to learn what the (malformed) abbreviation means. -DePiep (talk) 18:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - "R&B" is shorthand for "Rhythm and Blues". This RfD is extremely similar to the 2013 RfD about Template:Cop and the 2014 RfD about Template:wprk, which I am incorporating by reference for the sake of brevity. There are several templates like this, such as {{Tb}} which is not about tuburculosis, {{pot}} which is not about cannabis, {{hat}} which is not about headwear, etc. WP:R#D8 does not apply as this is not an article space redirect. WP:R#D2 does not apply as confusion is less likely to occur in other name spaces.
  1. Per WP:R#KEEP, "If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do".
  2. The redirect was created over two years ago, so IMO the time has passed for changing the redirect without significant confusion. Alleged confusion is not very plausible at all. So absent evidence of any harm there is no reason to delete.
  3. "There seems to be no evidence of confusion, just conjecture on the part of nominator, and no argument grounded in WP:R. Laziness is the exact purpose of redirects, to be perfectly honest, and the creator of a useful redirect that saves one or two characters should be commended. We don't delete redirects based merely on conjecture. Someone obviously found these useful given they were created."
  4. "One of the lowest things one can do is steal another mans tools. So you have no use for it. That it's being used on [talk pages] is good enough, and there is zero reason to take away something that has no higher use. Such Nominators should be required to be the one to hand edit and remove any deleted tags."
  5. "Redirects are not only cheap but this is a redirect from and to template namespace. That would tend to indicate to me that anyone using it is an editor rather than a general reader and they are hardly likely to get it [confused]. There are lots of little abbreviated things pulled up over the years such as {{tlc}} or {{tlx}} or whatever as useful shorthand for editors." --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:11, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No confusion? Evidence of confusion (one of more) is that it does not have "WP" in it. That is misleading by any common sense. What more do you need? If you accept proof only that shows editors who used it wrongly in a preview or editors who were confused and frustrated so left a page, what evidence would be OK for you? Must we track clicking & thinking response behaviour from editors? -DePiep (talk) 07:06, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The abbreviation "R&B" for R&B (in real life too) is not disputed by anyone. There even is no second claim for another use. All fine.
The issue is that "WP" is omitted and the lowercase. (you yourself did uppercase it for your argument).
"steel a mans tools": Your "tool" is in my road. That tool is loading other editors with the burden of grasping the meaning of this template. Typos and non-intuitive abbreviations are not for shortcuts. Who will learn a typo? -DePiep (talk) 07:06, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - I don't have the burden of proof in cases like this. Without proof, the redirect can stand IMO, because redirects are cheap. The same can be said for {{cop}}. Besides, it is not difficult to type "Template:R&B" into the search box, or to use "Preview" or "Undo" (WP:IDLI). Anyone who used {{r&b}} before I made it got a red link. --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am not asking you for a proof. You are asking for an improbable proof. I am asking how such a thing could be proven at all. -DePiep (talk) 17:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who used {{r&b}} before I made it got a red link. Except that a link search reveals that nobody used it before you. And if anyone ever did, they immediately replaced it with the correct template name - something that's impossible to prove as ever having happened. So that's a completely specious argument. — Scott • talk 21:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Did I miss something? Jax 0677, you didn't create this redirect, did you? --BDD (talk) 18:40, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Huh. He started using it recently, certainly, but he didn't create it; that was Eduemoni. — Scott • talk 19:11, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jax 0677 is being WP:POINTy. -DePiep (talk) 20:06, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - My point is that I do not have the burden of proof. If one does not use the redirect themselves, it will not take up mental bandwidth. If the redirect with all capital letters points to one location, why would we want the redirect with all small letters to potentially point to something else? If we delete this, then will we need to delete {{songs}} and {{albums}} as well? Also, as of late, I have refrained from creating WikiProject redirects, and I plan to comply with the decision to be made at Wikipedia_talk:Shortcut#Template_shortcuts. Also, there is no proof that I am being "pointy". --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:27, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Template:WPFK[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 May 28#Template:WPFK

Template:WPPK[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. After well over a month of discussion, something needs to happen here. I'm performing an WP:INVOLVED close, and I think "any reasonable administrator" would call delete here. Contact me with concerns. --BDD (talk) 19:09, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two more misnamed templates by Jax 0677. PK is the country code for Pakistan, and WP:PK is the shortcut for Wikipedia talk:Notice board for Pakistan-related topics. See also the RfDs of Template:Pk and Template:Wpk, both also by the same author.

Note: the target shown above of the first template is not a listing error. This is what Jax 0677 has been doing: creating variant-cased redirects that redirect to each other, in other words nonfunctional double redirects. In each case his error has subsequently been corrected by a bot, as I expect the one above will be.

At this point I'm going to take an unusual step. Jax 0677's apparently endless stream of malformed template redirects is now wasting a significant amount of effort at RfD. I ask the community: is there consensus for the imposition of a moratorium on any further creations by Jax 0677 of music WikiProject template redirects? — Scott • talk 18:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: it appears that Jax 0677 is currently blocked from editing and will not be able to participate in this discussion until his block expires at 14:00, 16 April 2014. — Scott • talk 18:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it's silly of Jax to create double redirects, but I don't think it makes much sense to discuss them as such. I assume the RfD tag will prevent bots from fixing them. Why not just fix them and discuss accordingly? --BDD (talk) 20:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • My point here is that not only are these redirects poorly conceived and in conflict with existing shortcuts, they're also nonfunctional as created. Which is starting to make me wonder if competence is an issue. — Scott • talk 20:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per my comment below. I would support a moratorium on creation of redirects iff it was accompanied by a moratorium on the nomination of all redirects to WikiProject templates until the discussion about them concludes. Thryduulf (talk) 20:12, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • One user wasting the community's time by creating a blunderbuss blast of redirects of questionable value is a discrete issue from how redirects should be named. Certainly Jax 0677 should stop creating redirects until that discussion has been resolved, regardless of the whether the RfDs open on his creations are resolved or on hold. These most recent ones were all created yesterday. — Scott • talk 20:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"below"? And why the "speedy"? -DePiep (talk) 19:39, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Adding: why bolding the argumentation? -DePiep (talk) 19:41, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete PK is the country code for Pakistan, which has its own WikiProject -- 65.94.77.36 (talk) 20:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • PK has many possible meanings and there is no reason why a country code should automatically have precedence, and you have not given any reasons why this country code should get precedence over any other use. Thryduulf (talk) 11:08, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • PK is not a recognized abbreviation for Punk, so it is inappropriate for punk to misappropriate this term in all cases, with other uses that are recognized present and having wikiprojects. -- 65.94.77.36 (talk) 04:36, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PK is a Pakistan usage, though it's to noticeboard rather than the WikiProject proper. --BDD (talk) 16:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WikiProject Pakistan / {{WikiProject Pakistan}} ; noticeboards don't support banners, but WikiProjects do , and this is a template redirect. Anyways, the existence of the noticeboard and the wikiproject indicates that PUNK should not use this redirect location. -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 04:38, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - See my response at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_14#Template:Wprg. Also, PK "has many possible meanings and there is no reason why a country code should automatically have precedence, and [no reason is given] why this country code should get precedence over any other use." --Jax 0677 (talk) 04:30, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No one is going to interpret PK as a shortcut for punk rock. Can we escalate a ban on all such creations by the author? --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:51, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Clearly created by Jax 0677 for WP:POINT only. Created this one right after Jax wrote the arguments they now link to here (self-serving logic). No editor really needed this one, though Jax is talking for them (non-existant). No base for real usefullness for editors (created but not used). Boilerplate 'arguments' linked to by Xax do not apply reasonably. Linked arguments have been responded to earlier, clearly without change of thought by Jax. And one more question: people who use "strong" in the bold !vote are expected to explain why that is. -DePiep (talk) 19:39, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Whichever statements apply to this discussion are the ones to which I am referring. The discussions are getting long, so I am incorporating other discussions by reference for the sake of brevity. If one does not use the redirect themselves, it will not take up mental bandwidth. As of late, I have refrained from creating WikiProject redirects, and I plan to comply with the decision to be made at Wikipedia_talk:Shortcut#Template_shortcuts. Also, there is no proof that I am violating WP:POINT, and the redirect bots will fix double redirects in time. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Worthless argumentation. I can say too: "look at wikipedia what I wrote. -DePiep (talk) 21:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete PK stands for a lot of things, at least one of which has a WikiProject. Punk isn't one of them. This is non-intuitive and unlikely to be useful. No prejudice against repurposing for Pakistan. --BDD (talk) 16:26, 1 May 2014 (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.

Sir Technocracy[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. --BDD (talk) 16:23, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Straight deletion. They make no sense with respect to the target article. Best I can think of is they were originally to a different article with the same name but this may even just be a hoax. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:17, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all per Peter Rehse. Si Trew (talk) 13:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • n.b. Admins can view deleted edits, and there are none for this article. As far as I can tell, it's always been about the Welsh boxer. --BDD (talk) 16:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So a mistake from the very beginning. If you do a google search on "Reddit Proposal Malcolm Collins" the Malcolm Collins that comes up is clearly not the Welsh boxer.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete "Reddit Proposal" and "Meme Proposal" as exceedingly senseless. There are many reddit proposals and meme proposals. -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 04:42, 25 April 2014 (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.

Next Hungarian parliamentary election[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 fixed date in {{Rfd}} tag on the redirect's page. For that reason, this discussion is no longer necessary. Please refer to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 April 22#Next Hungarian parliamentary election for the current discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 21:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This wasn't tagged for being under discussion. The target is now being investigated for COPYVIO (not by me). I don't think we need a separate discussion when one is already open here, but I wanted to tag it first. Si Trew (talk) 08:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wat? If COPYVIO deletes the article, they'll take care of redirects as well; for the most part, there should be nothing to discuss. If it doesn't, we're presumably keeping the redirects. Why are we here? --NYKevin 20:09, 24 April 2014 (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.

Mongoloid idiot[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) 16:21, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. only in 19th, 20th centuries Mongoloid word was meant Down syndrome. Now it is no longer in technical use. http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/67258/mongoloid-with-reference-to-downs-syndrome. Batka83 (talk) 23:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's offensive term for whole country Mongolia. Now it's 21st century. This word is no longer in use. What if we call Americoid or Engloid term as idiot? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Batka83 (talk • contribs) 09:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC) — Batka83 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Don't use use mongoloid to refer to Down's syndrome in any form of English, it's offensive.
The Downs Syndrome Association advise the media of What To Say / Not Say, including:
Don't Say: Mongol
Do Say: person/baby/child with Down's syndrome.
Also in term Brit doesn't have another word Idiot Batka83 (talk)
Note: Multiple comments placed together. Saying "delete" multiple times will not increase the chance of anything being deleted. — Scott • talk 13:59, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a question of what the Down's Syndrome Assoiation advise the media. We're an encyclopaedia not a newspaper: and even if we were a newspaper, we wouldn't have to heed that advice. I accept entirely it is an offensive term, that is not the point. It is a question of if this is used in literature and if it is a likely search term. That is the criterion. Not whether it is politically correct or whatever. You can add that advice – if you have a reliable source, although it would seem rather WP:PRIMARY – at the article itself. The Guardian's style guide here for example does not have any advice on Downs syndrome or on Mongol beyond saying it means "one of the peoples of Mongolia", however there are plenty of Guardian articles available online that say that people with Down's syndrome were called Mongols. Si Trew (talk) 13:08, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as likely search term. Although the term "mongoloid idiot" is not in the article, "mongoloid imbecility" is, but reference 94 is "Observations on an ethnic classification of idiots" and lo and behold it was written by Down. A very interesting (and short) paper, actually, in which Down is not using it pejoratively at all. Si Trew (talk) 06:19, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per SiTrew, though documentation should be added to the redirect -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 06:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per SiTrew as a helpful search term. BethNaught (talk) 06:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Batka83. It's offensive term used in last centuries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jumbara (talk • contribs) 09:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC) — Jumbara (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Sock vote struck (see user's block log). --BDD (talk) 23:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Batka83.
    The following cases would make it sensible to use that term that way:
    You're living in the late 19th or early 20th century.
    You hate people with Downs Syndrome.
    You're racist.
    You hate people with Downs Syndrome and you're racist.
    If any of the above are true, it would make perfect sense to use that word in that sense. In the case of writing fictional character's speech, take care that people don't confuse their speech with yours. Otemd (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 10:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC) — Otemd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Sock vote struck (see user's block log). --BDD (talk) 23:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Plausible search term, particularly for those coming across the term in older documents. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:35, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED, so "offensive" terms are fine if they are used (there are exceptions for WP:BLP and so on). But Down used it in the paper, and I guessed coined the term, and mentions that they have certain facial attributes similar to Mongols but not all. He was suggesting quite the opposite of racism: that all races of human beings are the same, and that differences in appearance and so on are not down to race separation/evolution (remember this paper was written at a time when evolutionary theory was highly contentious). He concluded, in that paper, that all human beings belong to the same species. Thus Down himself was not using it as a racist term. Neither did he hate people with Down's Syndrome; he treated people with Down's syndrome who were at that time considered hopeless cases, and said that with training they could learn to walk, talk and so on (like the rest of us!). Neither is the term "idiot" a pejorative term, it was used on a scale of classifying people with mental disabilities (we have moron, for example, which is a DAB for which the first entry is Moron (psychology)). Similarly spastic became a pejorative term in the UK but we still have a redirect for The Spastics Society, which changed its name. You can read Down's paper here online – it's very short. The term Brit is incorrect and mildly offensive to me as an Englishman (and to many other people from all parts of the United Kingdom), but we still have a DAB with British people as top entry. Si Trew (talk) 12:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep That's a great paper (Down's paper)- and if you get around the period language it is decidedly not racist. By way of comment Mongoloid has a long history as a common term for Down's syndrome and is therefore essential as a search term. Now since Mongoloid refers to a population you will need something to distinguish the Down's syndrome variant from the ethnic variant.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:09, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But it doesn't does it? "Mongol" certainly needs to be disambiguated, but "Mongoloid" I would have thought only refers to people with Down's Syndrome? Si Trew (talk) 13:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well I am taking my lead from Mongoloid (disambiguation). Mongol refers to a specific people (our friend Ghengis) while Mongoloid is a larger racial group.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:36, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Then let's 'add a hatnote at Mongols (to which Mongol redirects, whereas usually you would expect Mongol people , on the lines of British people, French people, German people and so on). That's a separate matter for RM if we should change the article title, but the lead starts "The Mongols, or Mongolic peoples"... and does not mention mongoloids. It has a DAB at mongols (disambiguation) which mentions mongoloid, but not mongoloid (disambiguation), which it probably should. It is all a bit of a cat's cradle. Si Trew (talk) 17:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well it is confusing.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, regardless of Batka83's misbehavior. Mention in Mongoloid (disambiguation) that the term "Mongoloid idiot" is now generally considered offensive and is historical in nature. --jpgordon::==( o ) 18:33, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tag {{unprintworthy}} (and keep). Offensive as hell, but based on the stats it does appear to be useful. --NYKevin 02:53, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, {{unprintworthy}} is used only to mark things like typos and misspellings, not for censoring legitimate alternative titles. (WP:NOTCENSORED is just as applicable to printed versions of Wikipedia is it is to online versions.) The proper template here is {{Redr|from historic name}}, which is already correctly applied to this redirect. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • The term is no longer in academic or mainstream use, even in specialized circles. Combined with its offensiveness, I call that unencyclopedic. --NYKevin 03:18, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are several RS to the word "mongol" being used to mean Down (or Down's) syndrome (I note that it is the Down's Syndrome Association not the Down Syndrome Association, so the use of the posessive still seems to be in flux), two of which are quite recent:
  • Gayle, Damien (30 April 2014). "Clare Short facing criticism over the use of the word 'mongol' in Radio 4 interview about children with Down's syndrome". Daily Mail. Retrieved 30 April 2015.
  • "Living with a mongol baby". Catholic Herald. 22 September 1978. Retrieved 30 April 2015.
  • Croce, Maria (23 November 2013). "Tragic tot's mum insists son was Mongol by way of ancestry.. not for having Downs Syndrome as she launches campaign to change attitudes". Daily Record (Scotland).
I note also that mongoloid fold is a redirect to epicanthic fold and mong is listed at List of British words not widely used in the United States as "(slang) disgusting, dirty, foul, idiotic person, possible derivation from mongoloid, now obsolete term for someone with Down's Syndrome. Mongoloid (disambiguation) is a DAB entry at mong. Free Dictionary here, a Wiki which is presumably not RS but still useful, redirects "mongoloid idiot" to Down Syndrome, here but does not mention it in the definition.
Hope the extra information helps. For me, I can't help feeling this is just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Any argument along the lines of "this is offensive" are just invalid: WP:NOTCENSORED. I get called things I find offensive almost every day, not all of them by my wife.
None of those sources, however, except the Free Dictionary by way of a redirect, mentions the term "mongoloid idiot". Down's paper does not use the word "mongoloid", rather describing idiots who have "Mongolian features". So there is a weak case for deleting this specific redirect, but not the argument you were making (offensiveness) rather than it is not used to mean someone with Down's Syndrome, "mongol" is used instead. WP:RS suggests people with Down's Syndrome are often called that. It could be distinguished on case (people with Down's Syndrome seem to be called "mongol" in lower case), but that is increasing, rather than reducing, the mess. Si Trew (talk) 23:19, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for Batak83's comment "Also in term Brit doesn't have another word Idiot" I am sure that was not there when the discussion started, and I think has been added after I made the analogy to Brit being offensive to some, but I can't find which edit. There are other terms such as Britisher, which implies a certain martial and xenophobic outlook by the subject, and Briton. There is, however, the article title itself British people, what's wrong with using that? When editing an article, it is easy to rephrase to avoid the offensive term. But Wikipedia is not the whole world and if someone comes across an unfamiliar term in a book or newspaper what are they likely to do? Either ignore it (most likely), look it up in a dictionary, or look it up an encyclopaedia. We do no good if they can't then find what they are looking for. Si Trew (talk) 09:50, 30 April 2014 (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/2014_April_24&oldid=1142587412"