Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 February 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 7[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 7, 2014.

Steve Austin[edit]

Relisted - see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 February 15#Steve Austin.

Inflict pain[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) 00:10, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect implications. It is, of course, absolutely possible to "inflict pain", either intentionally or unintentionally, without being any kind of sadist. Carnivorous predators "inflict pain" on their prey, but not out of any sadistic impulse. Dentists "inflict pain" as a side-effect of fixing cavities. People carelessly "inflict pain" on themselves. bd2412 T 13:48, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete. BD2412 is correct in everything he says in the nomination. In the "pain" article the word inflict is only used in the context of corporal punishment but that too would make a poor target. This is a young redirect (created 31 January) so there is comparatively little liklihood of external links being an issue. Thryduulf (talk) 14:03, 7 February 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.

Wikipedia:Yogurt Principle[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. WJBscribe (talk) 16:55, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading cross-namespace redirects to the userpage User:Born2cycle/Yogurt Principle, which was userfied from project space in July 2013 at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Yogurt Rule.

These redirects from project space imply that there is a "Yogurt Principle" or "Yogurt Rule", whereas the community has rejected that notion.

These redirects are being used by the creator of this contentious essay as links in discussions, which other editors have noted as giving the impression that the essay has some sort of community support (e.g. [1]).

WP:YP is not an appropriate use of a 2-letter redirect. Such short redirects are normally for frequently-used redirects, and very short shortcuts can be taken as implied acceptance of frequent use. That is not the case here.

Other cross-namespace redirects to the same page have been removed:

It is of course quite acceptable for an editor to link directly from a discussion to an essay in their userspace, or to use a redirect within their own userspace (e.g. User:Born2cycle/Yogurt Reminder). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:56, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disclosure: This nomination was prompted by this comment in a discussion where at least one of these redirects had been used by the creator of the essay. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:13, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all four. The target is a thoroughly screwie essay, based on flakey ill disciplined logic, and it asserts a supervoting perogotive for closers. This user frequently blurs distinction between his opinion and community consensus and written policy, he actively seeks to modify policy per his opinions, and to assert policy as written to trump ordinary editors opinions. With these redirects, his use if them makes it appear that he cites something reasonable. In doing this, he is misleading readers of his posts. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete all. Although being misused is not a reason in itself to delete a redirect, and Wikipedia: to User: redirects are fine for user essays that have a reasonable consensus, the community has repeatedly rejected the principles espoused in this essay and so the redirects are not appropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 12:29, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, per my original comment at the Naming Conventions talk page, as well as the sound reasoning of the above editors. Joefromrandb (talk) 13:06, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all As I and several others said back in July, in the discussion that resulted in this essay being moved to userspace: the WP-prefixed redirects should be deleted. They are misleading and potentially deceptive, by implying that this is a Wikipedia rule rather than one person's opinion. MelanieN (talk) 13:11, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all four per above, lest readers be misled into thinking that they are reading something with official implications. bd2412 T 13:49, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete all per comments of others. Omnedon (talk) 13:50, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete use of the Wikipedia space to host essays (and redirect to them) and similar things should only be permitted where they really carry the weight of the community behind them. This fails that. It shouldn't be given a false endorsement like this. WilyD 14:10, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a reasonable opinion, but contrary to how essays have been treated in the past. --B2C 22:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, for the reasons already expressed above. ╠╣uw [talk] 14:23, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shortcuts pointing to user-space essays are commonplace. The essay is tagged with {{essay}}. "User" in the title and the warning generated by {{essay}} ought to be enough to avoid deception. As someone wrote in the July MfD, "If having an allcaps bluelink shortcut to an essay is the problem, then that's a wider issue than this essay." An editor who sees an unfamiliar WP:SHORTCUT could follow it to its target page, or ignore it. If there are really editors who weigh arguments by the quantity of WP:SHORTCUTS without viewing the target pages of those shortcuts, those editors may be deceived by the misuse of shortcuts to actual policies and guidelines.
The nominator announced this [3] at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names) and several editors who opposed Born2cycle there have shown up here, favouring deletion. SmokeyJoe had opposed Born2cycle in the yoghurt vs. yogurt debate in 2011 and in July 2013 proposed that the essay be deleted. At Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2013_July_17#Wikipedia:YOGURTRULE Smokeyjoe asked that the shortcut WP:YOGURTRULE be deleted, offering as part of the rationale "This "shortcut" is not 'short' and its few instances are clearly only serving as a slogan to prominently stand out in running text." Now we're told that WP:YP is too short. WP:YP was discussed in the July 2013 MfD, in which someone proposed "Delete WP:YOGURTRULE and WP:YR shortcuts ASAP". There wasn't a consensus then to delete WP:YP. What has changed since then?
This seems to be largely about Born2cycle's discussion style, which seems to have annoyed many editors; deleting these redirects will do little to change that. Perhaps this would be better pursued through the dispute resolution processes. —rybec 15:32, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The allcaps bluelink shortcut is a wider issue than just this essay, but the journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. Having other problems doesn't mean we shouldn't fix this one, but that we should fix the other ones too. WilyD 16:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Can someone explain to me what they believe the essays says, with a link the specific words in question, that they find so objectionable? And by the way, why not bring up your objections at the essay's talk page first? We can discuss them, perhaps sort out some misunderstandings, and fix the objections? --B2C 16:43, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
RE And by the way, why not bring up your objections at the essay's talk page first? We can discuss them, perhaps sort out some misunderstandings, and fix the objections? Come on! There are already 80,000 bytes of such discussion at the talk page. None of it accomplished anything, because you consistently rejected all suggestions and maintained your right to control the essay. Fine, it's a user essay, you own it. But don't pretend it's anything more general than that. MelanieN (talk) 04:36, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tweaking the essay won't alter the consensus that it doesn't belong in project space, so that doesn't alter the inappropriateness of the cross-namespace redirects (see WP:R#DELETE#6). And in any case, one of the reasons it was userfied was your WP:OWNership of it.
      It's your essay, you appear to be almost the only editor who links to it, so why not link directly? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't WP:OWN it. I wanted it to be in project space, and then when that was rejected, to have redirects to it from project space, precisely so others would contribute to it. The only reason it's in my user space is because that's where it was forced to be, for reasons I still don't understand. It's not my choice. Even if an essay does not represent community opinion does not mean it can't or shouldn't be in project space. That's why it's an essay.

        The essence of the original POV of any essay should be protected from being significantly changed in the way that SmokeyJoe wished to change this one; defending it accordingly doesn't make me the WP:OWNer. If one's view differs that much from an essay, they should write a separate essay, not try to morph the one they disagree with into saying what they think.

        Recently, JennKR (talk · contribs), unsolicited, and someone I don't recall ever encountering, thanked me for writing it[4]. If it was not linked from project space they probably would have not known about it.

        I'm still in the dark as to what specifically is in the essay that is so problematic. I strongly suspect it is misunderstanding, which can be remedied with rewording.

        Anyway, it's a lot easier remember and type [[WP:YP]] or [[WP:Yogurt Principle]] than [[User:Born2cycle/Yogurt Principle]] --B2C 19:25, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

        • Since you appear to be more or less the only editor who links to the essay, I'm sure that you can find a way of remembering that the essay is at User:Born2cycle/Yogurt Principle.
          The reasons why your essay was moved to user space were discussed at the MFD. This is not the place to reopen that discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:22, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Since cross namespace redirects from project space to essays in user space have not been viewed as a problem by the community before, this is an appropriate place to explain what exactly is said in this essay that makes the cross namespace redirects to it a problem. --B2C 00:35, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • See WP:R#DELETE#6. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • How is that applicable here? It starts with: "It is a cross-namespace redirect out of article space, ...". These redirects are not in article space. Cross-namespace redirects out of WP space are not an issue, so far as I know. --B2C 23:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Uninvolved editors? - I'd like to hear the opinion of an experienced editor who is not biased pro or con with respect to me (doesn't know me), after they read the essay. It should be noted that all deletes so far are not that. --B2C 19:32, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

            • Regarding the length issue, there is nothing stopping you from creating User:B2C/YP or whatever. Thryduulf (talk) 01:01, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or disambiguate the last one Wikipedia:YP should be deleted, as "YP" usually means yellow pages so should redirect to our indexing system WP:Contents or WP:Index -- 70.24.244.161 (talk) 06:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A redirect is a search-aid, not an endorsement, and the target clearly states "Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion. Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines.". Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 07:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all four - as previous discussion conclusion. Also not happy with the comment above: Uninvolved editors? - I'd like to hear the opinion of an experienced editor who is not biased pro or con with respect to me (doesn't know me), after they read the essay. It should be noted that all deletes so far are not that." etc. I believe that the above WP:SNOW of deletes is not to bias but simply we don't link [WP:SHORTCUTS] to content which has been removed from essay space to user space because it lacks support. I don't this comment was called for or should be rewarded. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:23, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • My opinion that we should strive to make our titles more stable (See User:Born2cycle and User:Born2cycle/FAQ) is oddly controversial. There are a number of editors, including you, who apparently prefer having more "flexibility" in how titles are selected, and thus favor less definitive and more ambiguous title policy and guidelines than I do. Further, their disagreements with me leads to considerable animus directed towards me and my actions, as demonstrated by the "WP:SNOW of deletes" in this discussion. --B2C 19:13, 10 February 2014 (UTC) altered link to JDLI. --B2C 21:50, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • One can be in favor of title stability and still disagree with you. One can also be in favor of title stability and flexibility. Are you saying that everyone who has voted "delete" has something against you? Could it be that the reasons given are in fact the reasons? Omnedon (talk) 19:23, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say those options are mutually exclusive. --BDD (talk) 19:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just say if somebody else created those redirects and essay we probably would not be having this discussion. --B2C 22:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but as near as I can tell Omnedon (talk · contribs) has not participated in a deletion discussion of any kind for years. Is it a coincidence that the one he jumps in on involved me? I, for one, doubt it. --B2C 23:06, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

B2C, on his talk page SmokeyJoe recommended to you that you open an editor review to learn about why you perceive other editors to respond negatively to you. That is a good suggestion, which I hope you will follow. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:05, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
B2C, that sounds like a violation of WP:AGF to me. As is your linking of the terms "JDLI" and "flexibility". Omnedon (talk) 02:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're mistaken about all that too. --B2C 06:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The hidden linking of "flexibility" to JDLI is an example of inappropriate linking, and flat rejection of others arguments as not meeting his reading of policy and consensus. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So, B2C, you think there is some vendetta against you, and you single me out and accuse me -- but that's not an assumption of bad faith? Does this mean nothing to you? Omnedon (talk) 14:56, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Vendetta? Just because the only deletion discussions you have chosen to engage in in the last few years involve pages or redirects I have created (again, please correct me if I'm wrong about that) does not mean to me that you have some kind of vendetta against me, nor that you're acting in bad faith. Does it mean that to you? --B2C 17:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are complaining about my involvement, and seem to be claiming that everyone who has voted "delete" has something against you. Are you claiming that or not? Do you recall your pledge at all? Omnedon (talk) 17:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a difference of significance in a deletion discussion between the opinion of someone who has a history of disputing with the creator of the item nominated for deletion, and the opinion of someone who has no such history. Therefore, I think it's worth noting that almost everyone who has !voted to delete has such a history. Period. Pointing out a fact is not a violation of my pledge. --B2C 19:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Inappropriate linking", SmokeyJoe (talk · contribs)? It is my opinion that in the context of title decisions allowing for more "flexibility" is synonymous with allowing for more JDLI arguments. You may disagree with that opinion, but I have a right to express it, including by linking "flexibility", in that context, to WP:JDLI.

I also have a right to reject arguments that I believe do not meet policy and consensus as I understand them. Or do you believe nobody has that right? Or is it just me that you believe does not have that right? Please be clear. --B2C 17:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is inappropriate because it is a hidden link to a page that contains no mention of the word appearing blue-linked. If someone follows the link, they'll be frustrated trying to discovery how "flexibility" relates to the target page. If they don't follow the link, they'll be misled thinking that there is a prepared page or page section explaining why "flexibility" is not desirable, or given the title of the linked page, not even a worthy argument.

You have no rights here. Editing wikipedia is a privilege.

It is reasonable for you to criticise allowing for "flexibility", but is it misleading, aka "disruption", to use wikimarkup to create in incorrect impression that your agument is supported by the link linked.

You only have the right to reject arguments on your own behalf. You have no right to to use fakery to create an impression that there is broad support for your personal rejection of another's argument.

This is not just about you. However, the only editor I see trying to play these games is you. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:56, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're holding a link to an essay in a discussion to the same standard as a link in an article to another article. I know of know precedence for that. Do you? Do you know of anyone who was actually confused by that link? I've altered it slightly for clarity, just in case.

I did not mean "right" in the strict sense - I thought that was obvious from context. Your accusation of me employing "fakery" is a violation of AGF, and duly noted. Allowing for "more flexibility" in title decision-making policy and guidelines facilitates the use of more JDLI arguments. You might disagree, but that's my honest opinion - nothing fake about it. Perhaps you did not know that before, but there can be no question that you do now. --B2C 21:50, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For you: User:Born2cycle/FAQ#Flexibility_and_JDLI. --B2C 23:50, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination and supporting comments above. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the record, Vegaswikian (talk · contribs), like almost everyone else !voting for delete here, has a history of disagreeing with my views about titles. --B2C 21:50, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • For the record I resent that comment! What does that have to do with this discussion and the reasons for deleting or not? And in fact if you go way back into the archives I think you will find that at one time we pretty much agreed on article titles. But that was a long time ago. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:07, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nothing personal, but anyone closing this should know that this is not a typical RfD comprised of RfD regulars looking at the issue relatively objectively. Almost all of you are editors regularly engaged in disputes about titles with me. Maybe you're still objective, but maybe not. What weight if any to give to this consideration is entirely up to the closer, but the closer should be aware of it. --B2C 23:50, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • If disagreement with your "oddly controversial" views about article titles is grounds for disqualification from this poll, then there aren't likely to be many participants. I'm sorry you feel besieged. But even if all this people disagree with you about article titles, surely you can appreciate that a fundamental aspect of Wikipedia should be assuming that they happen to disagree with you about two things, rather than acting as though everyone has it out for you personally? AgnosticAphid talk 06:54, 15 February 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.

Wikipedia:Offshore Incorporations Limited Group (OIL)[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 delete. Consensus here has been that such redirects fall under R3 and G6. If they've gone undetected for a long time, it may be different, but that's not the case here. --BDD (talk) 00:54, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a near-implausible redirect from Wikipedia namespace to article namespace. Epicgenius (talk) 00:43, 7 February 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.

Chocolate face[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. WJBscribe (talk) 16:56, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Offensive and unlikely search term, meeting WP:RFD#DELETE #3. The only responsible thing that could be done with this is to make an article on the ethnic slur (e.g., Chink, Nigger), which doesn't seem practical here. BDD (talk) 00:34, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete could also mean blackface and chocolate covered faces of children when they messily eat the stuff. -- 70.50.148.248 (talk) 09:26, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: not in list of ethnic slurs. Siuenti (talk) 11:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. In addition to the uses mentioned by 70. above, it could also mean chocolates or chocolate cakes in the shape of a face, so if this were a plausible search term it would need to be disambiguated. However the only use that has an article is blackface, and it isn't a plausible search term for that. Thryduulf (talk) 13:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Urban Dictionary does list this as a racial epithet [5]; however, search engine results [6] show other uses such as chocolate face mask, chocolate face cupcakes and Chocolate Face lyrics. This is not mentioned on the target page and only gets around ~25 requests per month, which is more than Web crawlers usually cause, but part of the excess is likely due to people searching for those other uses, or people searching for related terms who see this as a search suggestion. Also the creator made several questionable edits before and after creating this (mostly before): [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]. If the racial term is going to be added to an article, then this will need disambiguation. Otherwise Trent Atkinson is an appropriate target, as Atkinson's song Chocolate Face is mentioned in that article. —rybec 16:08, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While I could see the possibility of a retarget to List of ethnic slurs, "chocolate face" redirecting to "Africans" is simply disgusting. It's on the level of "nigger" redirecting to "black people". Wikipedia is supposed to be a serious encyclopedia. This is enough of an embarrassment to us to justify immediate deletion, per WP:IAR. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:35, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The use of this term in RS is negligible, for good reason. Offensive. No value. --B2C 22:22, 11 February 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_February_7&oldid=1142587382"