Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 March 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 29[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 29, 2014.

Auburn Middle School (Disambiguation)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 April 28#Auburn Middle School (Disambiguation)

Template:Wtf?[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) 16:47, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Subst and delete per WP:CIVIL. Fortunately it has not many transclusions. Codename Lisa (talk) 17:53, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIVIL does not apply, as there is nothing in civil in using the word fuck or an abbreviation of it. WP:NOTCENSORED does apply however. It is a useful template abbreviation for a lot of cases, and there is no valid reason to remove it. Furthermore the link for the redirect discussion is now transcluded into all the articles that use the template, which is rather rdiculous and counterproductive.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:37, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the bad transclusion. Oh, God, just when one thinks he or she can safely nominate something for deletion here... Oh, well.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 18:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an overly redundant redirect. {{What}} is the same number of characters and does the same thing. I might agree that WP:CIVIL does not apply but on the flip side, neither does WP:NOTCENSORED. — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 19:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as its use is certain to spark quarrels. The "(d) belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgmental edit summaries or talk-page posts (e.g. "that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen", "snipped crap")" clause in WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL#Identifying incivility definitely applies here. WTF conveys both exasperation with the work of another editor and proclaims the invalidity of that editor's contribution. Templates should be designed to steer editors away from disputes, not toward them. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 22:58, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unnecessary drama magnet, and as Technical 13 notes, {{what}} is the same length. And, in fact, since it requires less use of a shift key, it's easier to type. — Scott • talk 23:14, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Definitely not needed, nor collegial redirect. Nate • (chatter) 23:28, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's a WTF comment, shouldn't be on here Doctornickel (talk) 18:57, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; I don't know anyone that would use such a name TheChampionMan1234 05:42, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wtf, as it says Nedgreiner (talk) 19:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; redirect's target doesn't make any sense; quite a WTF?! moment. StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:54, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This template is a plausible (or equally implausible) redirect to many templates. I can imagine a person thinking:
    • "WTF? Why this doesn't have a source?" ({{Citation needed}})
    • "WTF? You totally made that up!"({{OR}})
    • "WTF says that?" ({{Whom?}})
    • "Whoa! Big word. WTF is that? Some sort of sandwich?" ({{Elucidate}})
    • "WTF paid you to write this?" ({{POV-statement}})
    • "WTF is this doing here? It belongs to article X." ({{Relevance-inline}})
    • "WTF? The last sentence just said the exact opposite!" ({{Contradict-inline}})
    • "WTF? Not User Account Control again! Open-source world, here I come! WTF? Linux had sudo even before Windows did?" (No corresponding template.)
91.99.205.16 (talk) 01:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I see this as a tongue-in-cheek template but editors might interpret it in another way and can lead into unecessary fights that can hamper everyone's wiki productivity and waste time. --Lenticel (talk) 02:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is a tongue in cheek template of course, that I created because I was editing and knew there was a redirect to the clarify template, and I tried WTF, turned out a redlink so I created the redirect, in case someone else had the same experience. Whcih they did because the template is used in several articles. The redirect I was looking for was Huh?, which should be as big a problem if it werent for the prudish resistance to an acronym with and F for fuck. The template serves a pyurpose and does no harm.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Well, I can't imagine an editor using such words stating points in an article. Use of such templates could result in scenarios like a recent changes patroller mistaking the edit for a vandal edit, and finally will lead to edit wars and some admin action as well. A vandal could use this as well. Better to keep redirects like this out of Wikipedia. Zince34' 11:02, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The template contains no such words. It contains a letter. The reader sees "clarification needed". As for what satisfaction a vandal might derive from secretly typing F for fuck and everyone else seeing "please clarify" I cannot imagine. Kind of like a tree falling in the wood when noones around.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, some patrollers just look at the syntax typed and mistake everything. Zince34' 05:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment somewhat related to 91.99.205.16's comment: It is confusing that {{wtf?}} and {{WTF}} redirect to two different templates (Clarify and MIR, respectively). That's not a reason to delete either, but a discussion of both redirects may be called for. For that matter, the templates themselves may bear discussion, as it's not clear to me how MIR ("more information requested") differs from "clarification needed". Cnilep (talk) 01:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this and Template:WTF, per Scott and Mrschimpf. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:08, 7 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.

Udon Thani F.C[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. Harmless redirect.. The Herald 16:48, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect created erroneously to fix a non-existent problem. This redirect is not likely to be useful in assisting searches or as a directly used page. — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 17:47, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - The way I see it is WP:CHEAP. The redirected link appears to have helped a user at the Teahouse, and I see no harm at all in having it around. I can envision someone linking to this redirect, say, at the end of a sentence, if a period is added outside of the link. ie "There is a club Udon Thani F.C." It's a harmless redirect, one I don't see any good reason for deleting. Mz7 (talk) 23:48, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I have seen other redirects like that before (see U.S.A even though this may not be typed frequently, it is still worth keeping TheChampionMan1234 05:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 16:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - completely improbable redirect term. GiantSnowman 17:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Can't you imagine a sentence that ends with a link to Udon Thani F.C? In that case, the period might need to be elided. At any rate, it is cheap and harmless. Cnilep (talk) 03:27, 4 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.

Tiger tail[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 procedural close - converted to an article so no longer in scope of RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 00:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quirky and implausible redirect (no history) pointing to Tiger#Characteristics for no discernible reason; since people would have to type Tiger in any case, not a useful search term. Deletion would enable removal of cluttering hatnote in the section. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:35, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - This is a valid redirect and it supports an important hatnote. If you don't like having the hatnote in the middle of the article, a better option than deletion would be to expand this into a full article, like the Tiger penis article. The tail of a tiger is a common element in folktales, with characters stepping on them, pulling on them, cutting them off and using them for personal adornment, etc. Neelix (talk) 17:01, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mainly I was mystified by the redirect, but better than the hatnote would be a short mention in the cultural section of the article, where I'll investigate the suggestion you've just made. If you feel like creating the article and can find enough material to justify it then of course we can link to it from there. But I think deletion the right option. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:11, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What purpose would deletion serve? Paragraphical information will not replace the functionality of the hatnote. Neelix (talk) 17:42, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguating makes more sense than a redirect, but in that case it should be called Tiger's Tail not Tiger tail. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is also Tiger Tail, a nineteenth century Seminole leader, and various "tiger tail foo". Cnilep (talk) 03:33, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate, including Tiger, the hatnoted articles, and Tiger's Tail (which can become a separate dab page). ansh666 08:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have taken Chiswick Chap up on his suggestion above and expanded the redirect into an article. Neelix (talk) 16:15, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close now that the redirect has been developed into an article by Neelix --Lenticel (talk) 02:10, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close per Lenticel. It's now an article, not a redirect. Si Trew (talk) 08:20, 6 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.

VoteFair ranking[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. This method is promoted under the name "VoteFair," so the outcome is clear. It isn't our place to hide this valid search term because we don't think it's really fair. For example, I think FairTax is anything but, but that's how it's referred to. --BDD (talk) 16:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This redirect is misleading. The "Kemeny–Young method" article is not about what makes an election "fair". Rather, this article is about a concrete election method. Markus Schulze 10:25, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The name "VoteFair popularity ranking" appears in the article to which this entry redirects, so the shorter alternate name of "VoteFair ranking" belongs in Wikipedia. This redirect provides a way to find the article that contains this name.
The real reason for this deletion request is that its originator, Markus Schulze, has repeatedly attempted to remove information about voting methods that compete with "his" Schulze voting method. Note that the Schulze Method article is flagged with the words "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject" and his wording in the introduction of the Schulze STV article indicates an excessive personal focus on who originated that method (and why and how).
Also, the presence of the word "fair" within the VoteFair name is not a claim about any specific level of fairness. If the presence of the word "fair" within "VoteFair ranking" was a valid concern, then the presence of the article named FairVote (which has the same two words in reversed order) also would be of concern, yet it too clearly belongs in Wikipedia. VoteFair (talk) 01:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@VoteFair and MarkusSchulze: If you have a dispute with another user, this isn't the place to resolve it. Please see WP:DR. — Scott • talk 10:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, it isn't clear why it should be acceptable to use the term "VoteFair" for a particular voting system, but not to use the term "FairMajority" for another particular voting system. Markus Schulze 19:53, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The history section of the Kemeny–Young method article explains that the calculation method published by John Kemeny is different from the VoteFair ranking calculation method, and the history section clarifies that the main article describes the VoteFair ranking calculation method, not the Kemeny calculation method. The fact that these two calculation methods produce the same results is an important fact.
Keep in mind that this issue has already been discussed, that discussion is available in the archives, and the resolution reached by a number of Wikipedia editors is that the name VoteFair popularity ranking belongs in this article.
The claim by Markus Schulze that I do not use the "Kemeny-Young" name is ironic because he is the person who chose that name for the Wikipedia article, even though the method is better known as the "Kemeny method". I would prefer that the Wikipedia article be named the "Condorcet-Kemeny method" because this method is a "Condorcet method" and Young's contribution is not as important as the Condorcet categorization, but I do not push for that change.
Markus Schulze has repeatedly attempted to undermine this article because the method competes with "his" self-named Schulze Method, which is also known by the more descriptive name of the "beatpath" method, although he has aggressively pushed the term "Schulze method" into common usage (which is an ironic example of "neologism").
As for the comment about "FairMajority", why is Markus Schulze coining a new word? The redirect that we agree should be removed is "Fair Majority Voting".
Getting back to the VoteFair ranking issue, additional information is contained in the Archives, so please do not delete the "VoteFair ranking" redirect without reading those discussions. VoteFair (talk) 17:48, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. What about Betfair then? Si Trew (talk) 08:30, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The difference between using a needlessly vague and needlessly euphemistic neologism for an organisation (e.g. "BetFair" for a betting company) on the one side and using a needlessly vague and needlessly euphemistic neologism for a theoretical concept (e.g. "VoteFair" for a voting system) on the other side is that the name of an organisation is chosen by this organisation itself. For example, when an organisation is called "Democratic Party" then this only means that this organisation itself has chosen the name "Democratic Party"; it doesn't mean that there is a general consensus that this organisation is more democratic than the other organisations. But when a euphemism is used for a theoretical concept, then the naive reader will conclude that compliance with this euphemism implies agreeing to this concept. For example, proportional representation is called "proportional" because it is more proportional than other voting systems in an objective manner. Therefore, when a voting system is called "fair" in the title of its Wikipedia article, then a reader will mistakenly believe that this voting system is fairer than the other voting systems in an objective manner.
In other words: I don't believe that Wikipedia's guideline for neologisms applies on organisations. It doesn't matter whether the name of an organisation is a neologism. Whether a Wikipedia article on an organisation should be deleted depends on the notability of this organisation. Markus Schulze 09:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is single-word names, yet because Markus Schulze brings up the name "proportional representation" as if it is acceptable, I'll point out that "proportional representation" falsely implies full proportionality, yet it does not provide full proportionality, only superficial proportionality in terms of counting political parties. It is not proportional in terms of representing middle-income earners versus high-income earners, and is not proportional in terms of reform-oriented voters versus status-quo-oriented voters, etc. Part of the reason this phrase has become well-established is that it has been embraced by people who do not want full proportionality. Indeed, the common use of the phrase has given PR (proportional representation) voting methods a credibility beyond what is deserved. Now, let's get back to the real issue, which is single-word names.
There are countless concatenated words that take on a new meaning that differs from the component words. Off the top of my head, when the word "horseshoe" is used at a game of "horseshoes" it does not involve any confusion about the fact that no horse is involved. The component words simply provide root words from which a pronounceable word has been created. (If I come up with a better example I may edit this paragraph.)
Note that there are a number of organizations that use VoteFair ranking to elect their officers and they are aware that the VoteFair name does not imply any specific level of fairness. Also note that the Kemeny-Young method article -- in which the term "VoteFair popularity ranking" appears -- does not specify any specific level of fairness.
As stated before, the word "fairness" is not defined for voting methods, so how can the words "VoteFair" and "FairVote" be regarded as implying any specific level of fairness? VoteFair (talk) 18:01, 6 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.

Fair majority voting[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 April 11#Fair majority voting

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_March_29&oldid=1144362177"