Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 28[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 28, 2021.

Wikipedia:LUNATICS[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. That there is strong support and reasonable arguments on both sides here is apparent, so I think it's more useful for me to explain why I'm closing rather than relisting, and to comment on the possibility of deprecation. The first is also fairly easy to address: this discussion has already attracted more participation than the great majority of RfDs. It's possible relisting could lead to more opinions, but unlikely that it would lead to a significant change in consensus.
Regarding the possibility of deprecation, I assume we can all agree that no one should wield this redirect as an ableist attack, even if we might draw the line in different places as to what constitutes an ableist attack. As was noted in this discussion, other policies such as NPA already forbid this. Deprecation does not solve the problem—an editor could still link to LUNATICS if desired. I didn't see anyone explicitly oppose deprecation. It would not surprise me if a future discussion found consensus to do so; it would surprise me if it were unanimous. Between this discussion and RfD, there's been a lot of talk over the course of eight days. I recommend a cooling off period before a potential discussion to deprecate, if desired. --BDD (talk) 16:09, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As per the deletion discussion on the article this directs to, I have been encouraged to list this at RfD.

This shortcut has been used on Talk:Autism. I believe that uncritical references to lunatics do not belong in any disability-related article (although as I emphasised in the initial discussion, I do not think the editor was making a personal attack in this instance). I think these issues will exist for as long as Wikipedia:Lunatic charlatans exists at the title it does -- but removing this shortcut will limit the use of uncritical ableist language on talkpages; especially those relating to neurodevelopmental disorders or disabilities.

As I pointed out in the previous discussion, nobody would accept WP:RETARDS as an appropriate redirect; why is 'lunatics' acceptable? Bangalamania (talk) 20:50, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep A useful mnemonic for finding an essay about an important event in Wikipedia history. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:11, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What is wrong with using WP:CHARLATANS or WP:QUACKS instead? – Bangalamania (talk) 21:23, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This redirect is easier for me to remember, which is the function of a mnemonic. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:41, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but sanction editors who use it in a manner demeaning to neurodivergent or mentally ill people. Since "lunatic charlatans" is part of a quote, it's not inherently bigoted to use the phrase. Using it as a slur toward someone, or toward a group of people, is not something we should stand for as a community. In the case at Talk:Autism, it seems to me the best course of action would be to reply to the person, "That seems like an unfortunate choice of shortcut given the topic matter. Could you maybe use WP:CHARLATANS instead?" I think that would be a reasonable request. There's plenty of cases where a shortcut could cause offense without someone meaning ill. I think many would take exception to a link to WP:DEADHORSE (rather than WP:STICK) at Talk:Santa Anita Park, for instance. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 21:41, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment that would add a new a cudgel, instead of removing one. It would be sanctioning a misuse of a phrase while we continue to give tacit approval of it's general use by featuring it in guidelines and essays. Zvi Mowshowitz made an excellent point recently regarding rule making - rules should seek to create value rather than to punish behavior (my parapharsing, see point 4 in the post). If we keep the phrase, we're inviting people to use it, and they may take to that invitation in a circumstance where it's demeaning to a neurodivergent person. True, we could punish them when that happens. I mean, punishment is always an option, it just often doesn't have the effect you'd like to have. Instead we should try to avoid creating circumstances where people are likely to slip up and punishing them we they make an anticipated mistake. It would be better to remove the phrase so they're less tempted to repeat it, by which we more completely model civil conversation in Wikipedia guidelines and essays for all editors. - Scarpy (talk) 04:15, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We already have a rule for this. it's called WP:NPA. Criticize the argument not the argumenter, but that doesn't mean the essay is useless. One can describe an argument as "the stuff of WP:LUNATICS" without describing the person saying the argument as a "lunatic." This is the line we all walk every day here on Wiki. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:56, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I’d encourage to think a bit deeper on this. It’s true, you could structure awkward sentences like you’re example above to apply this to a belief rather than a person, but the way it’s phrased it’s still referencing a person by proxy. “That sounds like something a lunatic charlatan would say” criticizes your proximate opponent’s belief, but distally implies there are people who are lunatic charlatans at a trait-level rather than a state level. So I don’t see a way this can be used without personally attacking people, even if it’s not your immediate audience. - Scarpy (talk) 20:06, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"sanction editors who use it in a manner demeaning" did anyone do this? I think it was only mentioned as an excuse to nominate the essay itself and the essay is not about mental health. —PaleoNeonate – 22:26, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure whether anyone actually does it. The linked example seemds accidental. But if someone does do it, it should be met with a warning or sanctions. Just addressing the concern raised in the nom. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 16:03, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mild keep. Language is obviously in a state of flux these days, and there is a spectrum of "offensiveness", not a bright line. It's really fuzzy, and guided primarily by usage, not logic. For example, I've recently been told "Mormons" is considered offensive by some (but not all, and possibly not a large percentage?) CJCLDS people. It was certainly not a slur 10 years ago; it could very well be a slur 10 years from now. Or to use Bangalamania's example above, my childhood friends and I slung that word around with abandon. I wouldn't dream of using it now.
  • All that to say, the offensiveness of words - particularly words related to mental illness or disability - is in flux. Nearly 0% of people would be willing to create and use WP:RETARDS. Nearly 100% (guessing) would probably not be offended by WP:CRAZY or WP:NUTS. Some percentage X in between the two are currently bothered by WP:LUNATICS. "X" may be growing rapidly, I don't know. But it's a false equivalence to say "retard" and "lunatic" should be treated exactly the same, because they are not used in the same ways. I think we have to be guided by usage in the outside world, and follow changes that occur there. In my experience, "lunatics" has not become offensive to that many people in the outside world (I certainly encounter it frequently in work and personal life). It could very well be on its way to becoming so offensive it would be shocking in 1? 5? 10? years. "Crazy" may or may not follow it someday. If it ever becomes considered more widely offensive, I'd support removing the redirect. But not now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:44, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this is red herring. Of course, language and connotations of words are always changing. But this isn't about playing "gotcha! you used a word that someone decided should be cancelled last week!" This is about the tone of the documents that are used to steer Wikipedia, which have trickle down effects on all of the discourse that occurs related to them. There's a reason the Constitution doesn't say "George III is a punk ass, freedom y'all." Don't get me wrong, I'm a Mojo Nixon, not a Jean Dixon, but Wikipedia is not Twitter or Cable News. Part of the reason Wikipedia is still worth the effort is because unlike most other digital public squares, Wikipedia is not yet entirely about trying to dunk on your opponents with the harshest invectives allowable (although it's been backsliding in that direction for awhile now). We're trying to build an encyclopedia, we're not writing graffiti on desks in middle school. Let's act like adults writing an encyclopedia. - Scarpy (talk) 03:00, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not yet entirely about trying to dunk on your opponents with the harshest invectives allowable Oh, my. I feel like I'm entering a timewarp here. You should read the arbitration archives from, like, 15 years ago or more. When it started, this was most definitely a site that functioned primarily on a USENET model to dunk on your opponents, and, arguably, it's why WP was successful in the beginning. That you think it is more high-minded than that is perhaps a testament to how successful those who have worked to elevate the discourse here has been, but I hope you understand that this position you are taking is somewhat revisionist. jps (talk) 14:59, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. I wasn’t editing Wikipedia until around 2007, but I remember USENET from the 90s and early 2000s, yes there were flame wars and people could be vicious, but it was nothing like unmoored inverted reality of Twitter and Facebook groups in 2021. - Scarpy (talk) 19:50, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even the Lunatic article in Wikipedia acknowledges that it is an antiquated term that applies to the mentally ill (as well as others). This shortcut/redirect makes the term even more pejorative than it already is by associating it with charlatans. This BBC article is a helpful outside reference on how the term is currently rapidly falling into the category of what is considered unacceptable usage, while acknowledging that language evolves and what is acceptable changes over time. Regardless, this redirect reinforces a negative stereotype about the mentally ill and should be deleted. There is not a sufficiently compelling reason to keep the redirect given these concerns. Coastside (talk) 22:16, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't believe that Jimmy ever intended this phrase to become enshrined in Wikipedia guidelines the way that it is currently used. To point out the 500lbs gorilla in the room, among Jimmy's many good examples of prose and word choice, this IS NOT something that belongs on his highlight reel. The gymnastics that I see people go through to defend it, while grotesquely entertaining, are equally tone-deaf to how their words are received by their audience. Having a bin labeled "lunatic charlatan" and then throwing people's opinions in it as they attempt to express them on Wikipedia is a poor communication model, to put it very mildly. It is also to say nothing of the chilling effects on expression and congeniality amongst editors as they to try to avoid typing sequences of characters resistant to other editor's attempts to stick that label on them. If three of Wikipedia's pillars were wooden logs (WP:5P2, WP:5P3, WP:5P4) promoting this label is a bit like putting a 12 year-old boy in front of them, then handing him a splitting maul and a Red Bull. And no, that's not exaggerating the effect it has on civility, neutrality, and retaining/attracting editors--if anything it's an understatement. The least we can do is stop highlighting the most pejorative part of this very unfortunate noun phrase. - Scarpy (talk) 02:43, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having a bin labeled "lunatic charlatan" and then throwing people's opinions in it as they attempt to express them on Wikipedia is a poor communication model, to put it very mildly. When you're dealing with pseudoscience, sometimes it's necessary to call a spade a spade. Mlb96 (talk) 04:13, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Mlb96: [citation needed]. Seriously, can you support this claim with an RCT or meta-analysis? Have you done any kind of quantifiable impact assessment of such a policy to make sure the benefits outweigh the costs? You make a very strong claim when you say it's "necessary." So, surely, you have mountains of peer-reviewed scholarly work to support this that I've missed. Please, cite your sources and I'll happily change my opinion in real time. - Scarpy (talk) 04:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's not a "claim" at all. It's an opinion on the best way to deal with pseudoscience lunatics. Why would you assume that I was speaking scientifically rather than colloquially? Mlb96 (talk) 04:29, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Interesting. Should not one's opinions be informed by evidence, especially when they're consequential for policy decisions? - Scarpy (talk) 04:45, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Despite !voting keep here, I have to say I profoundly disagree with that. In the '00s and maybe the early '10s, defenders of truth waged an all-out war on Wikipedia against practitioners of pseudoscience. And then they won. Decisively. When was the last time advocates of pseudoscience won a content dispute on Wikipedia, rather than just being a nuisance? My guess is over a decade ago. What was left over from this war was a bloated number of projectspace pages dedicated to dunking on those adversaries. They serve little use in 2021, except to create a chilling effect against criticism of articles that misstate a scientific consensus (of which there are plenty). We only need one word to "call a spade a spade" with pseudoscience: pseudoscience. Same as we call vandals vandals and not terrorists, POV-pushers POV-pushers and not propagandists, etc.
        The reason to keep this redirect is that it's a plausible shortcut, not that people should go around calling one another "lunatics", "charlatans", or "lunatic charlatans". -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 04:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • When was the last time advocates of pseudoscience won a content dispute on Wikipedia, rather than just being a nuisance? My guess is over a decade ago. It depends on what you mean by "win". WP still has not resolved the best way to deal with many subjects that bleed over into pseudoscience as many of these situations are completely confused and sourcing is haphazard. It's why WP:FTN exists. jps (talk) 14:47, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Exactly right, call a spade a "spade". Don't call a spade a "schizo", "retard", "psycho" or "lunatic". If you don't understand why, please see: Why the language we use to describe mental health matters.

        "the extent to which [mental health stigmatization] has permeated our language, compared to any other area of ill-health, is astonishing. ... words are a barrier to help-seeking and a motivator for making discrimination acceptable."

        Coastside (talk) 06:02, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep useful -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 07:46, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, useful redirect with plenty of usage. Lunatics here clearly refer to complete nutters that espouse nonsensical worldviews, like water memory and homeopathy, not those with mental illnesses. However, de-emphasizing the shortcut like done here is fine. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:50, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all Ignoring the very fact this was on an article talk page and not actually in any article, WP:NOTCENSORED would still apply if there are good reasons for this redirect. As a useful shortcut that gets quite some usage and due to historical usage, these clearly do exist. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:50, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my comments on the essay deletion discussion and per Scarpy. It is rather amusing that an essay that puports to support scientific rational thought vs some brainfart, is being defended on the grounds that insulting ones's opponent in an argument is "necessary". There is actually scientific study about arguments (see the book I mentioned on the other discussion) and the evidence is very much that this is an unwise approach. -- Colin°Talk 13:51, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am sensitive to the concern that ableist language can be problematic, but I think context is important as well. Words like "crazy", "insane", "moronic", "imbecilic", "stupid", and, yes, "lunatic" have history of use that is meant to denigrate people with mental illnesses and neurodivergent conditions. It is great that society is moving towards doing something other than dismissing those with such conditions as irredeemable. But that it is why this particular redirect is somewhat interesting. The reference is not to the mentally ill or the neurodivergent. Instead, it is a reference to those who engage in woolly thinking of the sort that would be more correctly described as "mistaken", "misguided", or "corrupt". If the semantic shift for this word is at all possible, perhaps it is in the realm of ascribing it to the certain goopy woo woo. Alas, had Jimbo Wales used a more appropriate word when he wrote this e-mail, we would not be here today, but I hesitate to argue in favor of Bowlderization just because it's a headache. What I do think would be a great idea for the nominator here to do is add commentary that identifies the problems with the word "lunatic" and explain how polite society is trying to move away from using the word. Them, maybe create a new redirect and use it instead. I see that WP:WOO is available. jps (talk) 13:55, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because the potential for harm (unintentional or otherwise) is fairly high, and the value provided by this redirect is IMO low. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:26, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I find it fairly absurd that people consider this "harmful" when clearly, in context (and context matters), what is meant here is certainly not the dated sense of the word. See [1]. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:49, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If the essay were titled "Psycho charlatans", would you be ok with a redirect titled "PSYCHOS" that linked to it? Coastside (talk) 17:08, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a very obvious false equivalence (that the two terms are not the same and that one is even more informal than the other, goes without saying), so that's all the answer you should have expected. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:06, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Part of the potential for harm is that not every single use of every shortcut is, um, relevant. One occasionally wonders if perhaps some editors put in shortcuts without reading the page they are linking to. (For example, see anyone who makes any statement saying that WP:BRD is required.)
    Unlike the typical shortcut, this particular one has the potential to be used in an insulting and exclusionary manner. I therefore see potential for harm, perhaps to the editors who are told "You all are just WP:LUNATICS" or "We don't want LUNATICS on Wikipedia", but also perhaps to uninvolved people who see the comment. This can be a sensitive point. It would be unfortunate if a person with a history of mental illness felt excluded or unwelcome because of an unnecessary word. (I've no objection to WP:CHARLATANS or to WP:QUACKS, both of which are shortcuts to the same page. Presumably, when we need to link to this page, we could use those, which make the point cleanly without having the same potential to be harmful and exclusionary to other editors.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:24, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I followed up on this, to see how people are actually using this shortcut (via Special:WhatLinksHere). What I found is that: Mostly, they're not using it. More editors have participated in this deletion discussion than have used this shortcut in any discussion. Most of them were writing fairly neutral comments, of the "You might be interested in reading the essay WP:LUNATICS". A few were slightly more aggressive. One odd pattern I noticed is that a majority of links to this shortcut were posted by a single editor. User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch107#I don't get your point was the only informative discussion I found. I tried to find a representative quotation in that discussion, but I think you should just click on it and spend 60 seconds reading it instead. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:29, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@WhatamIdoing: I believe you are incorrect. The WhatLinksHere for Wikipedia:Lunatic Charlatans has 312 (looked at some of these in the other deletion discussion), vs 72 for WP:LUNATICS. Looking at the set of 72, in the first five talk pages I see Talk:Autism, Talk:Iridology, Talk:Bach_flower_remedies (where it didn't go well there), in Talk:Paul_Stamets it looks like a WP:BLP violation to me (which applies on talk pages) where they call the article topic a lunatic in a paraphrased quote, its usage in Talk:Anthroposophic_medicine is fairly civil. But 2/5 here things go off the rails with it came up, for another 2/5 it could have been better, and for 1/5 it was maybe acceptable. - Scarpy (talk) 06:42, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the editors say things like "See also WP:FRINGE, WP:LUNATICS and WP:YWAB." (to use Talk:Autism as an example). There are some problems.
I'm more surprised by how rarely it's been used (about 30 times total, if you exclude the notices about this discussion). This suggests that we don't have any "need" for this, especially if the editor responsible for most of those would switch to one of the less-offensive shortcuts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:34, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I checked which editor you could have meant by this, and it seems to be User:Tgeorgescu, who has not participated in this discussion yet. Maybe I am wrong, and you mean somebody else, but no matter who it really is, I find such finger-pointing-under-the-table, talking about absent users, a bit dubious, so I pinged.
Maybe the reason it is not used much is that it is not listed in the essay as a shortcut. I use it because it is easy to remember. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:39, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. There are other redirects to the same target with much better names. We don't need this one and, particularly if it is going to upset people, we should probably get rid of it. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:01, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Whereas I'm ambivalent on the associated essay being kept, I am in agreement that this redirect has to go, for the same reasons that we deprecated WP:DICK long ago.--WaltCip-(talk) 17:38, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Useful essay and even more useful redirect to that essay. It is a valuable addition to the project which is used on a regular basis by a great number of editors. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:55, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Is it just me or in the last year has there been a massive uptick in activism to purge every term that someone somewhere might find offensive? People on social media are always looking for a cause to rally behind, and this mentality is bleeding over. Enough. Look this word up in any dictionary, and they specifically only label it as dated or offensive when used to refer to actual mental illness. When used to refer to foolishness, it is not offensive. Any claim otherwise is itself WP:FRINGE. Crossroads -talk- 03:38, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    How is foolishness not just another synonym for mental illness, though? Isn't foolish behaviour one of the main things a psychiatrist looks for? Isn't it it that same lack of judgment, discretion or good sense that made "normal society" think there was something unhealthily "special" about "dingbats" in the first place? In any case, that's my claim. Less offended, more disappointed the wide world of feeblemindedness is narrowed to STEM field halfwittery, as if regular public masturbators, cardboard box collectors and blade-wielding maniacs be damned. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:26, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your first question is pretty easy. Every adult has made a foolish decision in their life, but not every adult is mentally ill. Akrasia, a kind of foolish, and I suppose is present in many mental illness, but where it is, it would be more of a necessary rather than sufficient condition. Akrasia is likely also a factor in many "physical" illnesses, like heart disease, diabetes, lung cancer, etc. Slate Star Codex has a good essay on this topic. There's also plenty of scenarios where I could just as easily argue mental/physical disease has nothing to do with "foolishness." I think about the aptness of saying to someone with psychosocial short stature, "if you weren't so foolish, you would be taller. Your height is because of your poor judgement." - Scarpy (talk) 07:17, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Just because that word once slipped from Jimbo's tongue doesn't mean we have to eternalize this in a redirect. We need to remove and keep away fringe from Wikipedia because it breaches one of our core policies (WP:NPOV), and that's it. There is absolutely no need to call anyone a lunatic (and that includes pseudoscientists: it's not a 'spade', and they're not 'lunatics', just 'wrong', or even merely 'holding marginal views') on talk pages. The only need is to actually and effectively apply content policy in our articles. In general, the mentality that needs to go is the one proclaiming that it's right to abuse fellow editors or others defending their POV just because that POV is not in line with the NPOV. If they push that POV, revert them, and if they keep at it, block them quickly and cleanly. Don't abuse them. I'm also particularly tired of hearing that anyone contesting this right to abuse must be themselves WP:FRINGE. That 'guilt by association' type of thinking is a mark of authoritarianism and extremism. It's not what we need right now. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 05:06, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Deprecate - per the concerns about redlinks appearing in old discussions: best solution is probably to treat it like WP:DICK. I think that some other delete !votes could also be understood this way. It's funny how the meta:Don't be a jerk essay that redirect points to is applicable to my argument here: "Don't be a jerk" is a fundamental rule of all social spaces. [...] Although nobody is expected to ban or block somebody for jerkitude [...] being right about an issue does not mean you're behaving properly! Jerks are often right – but they're still jerks. If there's something in what they say that's worth hearing, it goes unheard because no one likes listening to them. It doesn't matter how right they are. We don't want pseudoscience on WP, but that doesn't mean we have to be a jerk about it. I'm not calling for blocking people for being a jerk, nor for sanitizing language or anything like that, just for taking away the explicit support for this kind of jerky attitude, which seems to be implied by the very existence of this redirect. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:00, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The essay is tolerable, in many regards, but the single word is too broad and too inflammatory to point in any one group's general direction or another. That's not to say I want the word itself removed from social memory. It's a fine word, like a lot of antique words, just an unfine redirect (unlike WP:QUACKS, which is reasonably short, like a sensible shortcut). InedibleHulk (talk) 05:38, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This has been best summed up by Scarpy and Apaugasma. I will add that the redirect is out of place in Wikipedia as an old-fashioned term that's considered offensive. If the essay must stay, fine, but the redirect does nothing to help the essay, does it? I might suggest pinging Jimbo himself on his Talk Page and see how he feels about it. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tamzin. The shortcut points at an appropriate target (which has nothing to do with insulting the neurodivergent) and no better targets have been proposed. An editor using a shortcut like this ought to consider whether they're using it in a context where it's likely to cause offense, and if so consider using a different shortcut or just linking to the essay directly, but Hob Gadling's response to the IP's query was appropriate. If someone is using it offensively, they should be sanctioned just like we would for any other personal attack. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 16:33, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The redirect is unnecessary & carries a heavy potential for offense (whether intentional or not). There is already another redirect at WP:CHARLATANS which serves the purpose. Other Keep arguments such as WP:USEFUL or appeals to Jimbo hold no weight in a deletion discussion. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:16, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in the sense that it reflects the term used in the essay; punish editors who misuse the shortcut to insult people, which should be determined on a case-by-case basis. I'm deeply troubled by the !votes of editors who say that it should be deleted because it's not a 'spade', and they're not 'lunatics', just 'wrong', or even merely 'holding marginal views' (quoting Apaugasma). Sure, civility is a requirement of editors on Wikipedia, but if some edit is complete bollocks, editors should keep the right to call out bullshit, even if that involves quite explicit terms, if of course they can justify their strong assessment of that edit/content. Wikipedia is a sort of a marketplace of ideas after all, and we shouldn't restrict the possibility of editors to frankly express their views provided they can ground them in appropriate Wikipedia policies and guidelines; therefore, the mere linking to the redirect should not be punished. Just leave the shortcut out of convenience. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 09:54, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've commented before and I don't want to drag out my argument, but I thought I'd respond because you say you're "deeply troubled". You seem to be conflating two arguments 1) that editors should be punished for linking to the article or for calling editors they disagree with pejorative names and 2) that the redirect WP:LUNATICS should be deleted. I don't think editors who call charlatans "lunatics" should be sanctioned (although I do think it's inappropriate), and I don't think we should change the title of the essay. I do think it's reasonable to criticize editors for their poor choice of language on a talk page. And at the same time, I think we should delete the redirect. Deleting the redirect isn't punishing anyone. It's eliminating our explicit endorsement of the use of word in this context. Coastside (talk) 13:23, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I generally don't support language sanitation. People could take the rather mild term lunatic to be insulting, even though they know this isn't what the author meant, but it's not hard to find terms that a group of people finds insulting but they are still considered completely politically correct. For example, just recently a user was banned after he tried to systematically remove the term 'mormon' since recently the LDS Church decided it should be phased out. Clearly, some people find the term insulting, but it's not used like that on Wikipedia, and using it isn't a kind of prejudice against the Church or its followers. Av = λv (talk) 20:14, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Depreciate to echo my comments on the essay part of the discussion, I think the essay is valuable enough to keep, however strongly worded. The redirect should be depreciated. Use 'Charlatans' or something else instead. Red Fiona (talk) 01:26, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a redirect shortcut for being offensive and potentially a violation of WP:LBL. See List of disability-related terms with negative connotations. 5Q5|✉ 11:25, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As a practical matter, if the consensus is to delete this redirect, I think it would be only fair to retcon a proper link to the essay where it had been linked to in the past. It's not exactly fair to mess with people's comments years after the fact. Let's do our best to fight LINKROT here at least. jps (talk) 18:05, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hear, hear. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:15, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deprecate As I said over at MfD, I'm often sympathetic to claims that we should adjust some phrasing or other in order to avoid stigmatizing a marginalized group or propagating an old injustice. So, I'm reluctant to say that this redirect is entirely fine. But by the same token, deleting it could make old discussions read worse than they were. Imagine reading a Talk page or an old AfD and seeing it in red. If you didn't know the actual contents of the essay, would you guess that redirect was a "people have to be mentally ill to believe in homeopathy" screed, or a fairly tame restatement of WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:FRINGE? Maybe keeping it but not using it, and not advertising it in the "Shortcuts" box atop the page, is the best way to go. XOR'easter (talk) 19:12, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • If this does happen, perhaps a soft redirect like with have with WP:DICK would be a good idea, with a message saying why its use as a shortcut is deprecated? Otherwise, certain editors will just continue using the WP:LUNATICS shortcut, even if it is not listed in the "Shortcuts" box. —Bangalamania (talk) 19:41, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd have no objection to that. XOR'easter (talk) 22:11, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Can a bot be created to fix past usage, rewording it to Charlatans or Quacks to prevent red linking? Wikipedia:Bot requests Has such a bot ever been created in the past? Maybe the creator could be approached to make another. I don't know, just tossing this out there. 5Q5|✉ 10:38, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think treating it exactly like WP:DICK is a much less intrusive and therefore better solution. I changed my !vote above to reflect that. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:00, 6 October 2021 (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.

Fedora Linux‌[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. Hog Farm Talk 18:44, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is the same as the target article, but with an invisible Unicode character at the end. I do not see how this redirect with such a character at the end makes sense. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 18:42, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per G6 and R3. Seems to be left over from some sort of pageswap mixup? Not sure entirely what happened there, but either way it's an R3 (albeit an unusual R3 where the titles look identical). -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 20:53, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as can I see, this was just a technical redirect without tendencies to keep. ThisIsNotABetter (talk) 22:25, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete strange and unlikely synonym/ spelling variant --Lenticel (talk) 05:55, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technical delete but for the record, the redirect is "Fedora Linux" with U+200C (zero-width non-joiner) appended. Johnuniq (talk) 10:09, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per the above. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:58, 30 September 2021 (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.

Shurafa committee[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) 15:40, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated for deletion: target does not mention Shurafa or anything related to the title of Sharif (plural Shurafa); searching for "Shurafa committee" on Google gives only 6 results, one of which mentions only this "Wikipedia redirect". It further distracts Wikipedia searches for "Shurafa", where the many relevant mentions of the term should take precedence. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:28, 28 September 2021 (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.

Attrition (medicine, epidemiology)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 11:59, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion - the name doesn't match WP conventions. History of the redirect: It appears that an article was created at the redirect in 2007, and moved to Attrition (epidemiology). I just moved the article again, to the current target. It has only 15 links to it (3 in articles), so the potential issue with deleting redirects from moves of breaking links is minor here. Further, those links actually reveal the issue of its naming - 1 of those 3 article links is misused (cell disruption). The name "medicine, epidemiology" can lead someone to conclude that it's related to biology, rather than to scientific experimentation (that's why I originally went to the article). Per wikishark, the redirect gets only a very low number of views, and I suspect a number of those are due to it being on the Attrition disambiguation page. Xurizuri (talk) 12:29, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: the article was at this title for 11 years. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:58, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Shhhnotsoloud. Since the article has been there for a very long time, it's very much possible some links across the web lead to it, and it's not worth breaking them just to remove a redirect. Av = λv (talk) 20:26, 2 October 2021 (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.

Alpha (computer)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Alpha (disambiguation)#Computing. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 09:49, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha is a fictional computer. It can also mean the alpha stage of software development, which in turn related to computer. The redirect either need to be deleted or redirect to Alpha (disambiguation) Matthew hk (talk) 08:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:57, 28 September 2021 (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.

Port Castle[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Purt castle. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 09:48, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, internet searches do not turn up any relevant results. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 18:03, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, a lot of castles can be described as "port castle", Dover Castle for instance, and probably verifiably so. There is no reason to single out this one unless it can be shown to be a common name, which is unlikely for a Japanese castle. The rationale for this redirect appears to be that 港 (Minato) means harbour or port in Japanese. SpinningSpark 18:20, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Purt castle (whose lead says it's also called Port castle) and add a hatnote to Glasserton#Archaeology which also mentions a Port Castle. Definitely don't hatnote for the current target, as no sources call it "Port Castle" [2]. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 05:08, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Purt castle as per IP user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coastside (talk • contribs) 06:03, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:56, 28 September 2021 (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.

Scot[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 09:47, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • retarget to Scots. It is very strange when words in plural and singular are redirected to different places Somerby (talk) 08:23, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Firstly, with the exception of referring to Scottish people, "Scots" is NOT a plural. There are no topics at Scots which it would make sense to refer to as simply "Scot" except, again, the current target. Further, we have a disambiguation page Scot (disambiguation). Scot is therefore currently a primary redirect to Scottish people. We definitely don't want to say that Scots, a disambiguation page is the primary topic for Scot given that it already has it's own disambiguation page. A7V2 (talk) 08:41, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    A7V2, as far as I can see there are two ethnic groups who are referred to as Scots: Scoti and Scottish people (sometimes also third: Ulster Scots people if the Ulster context is clear). Maybe you are right that Scottish people is primary topic for Scots, because Scoti is historical ethnonym and for Ulster Scots there is adjective Ulster. But then Scots should also target to Scottish people, because again I repeat, it is confusing when ethnonyms in plural and singular are redirected to different targets. --Somerby (talk) 09:13, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Scoti is covered at the current target. What should be the primary target of the Scots disambig page is not an RfD discussion. Jay (Talk) 05:15, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's nothing wrong with the status quo. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:13, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Singular and plural absolutely can go to different targets. See Pole and Poles. HotdogPi 18:02, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I withdraw my proposal. I understand now that the current target (Scottish people) is OK. Somerby (talk) 19:03, 3 October 2021 (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.

VTAK[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 6#VTAK

Deograves Asuncion[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 5#Deograves Asuncion

Hey All You People[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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:32, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also listing this one separately, even though it isn't mentioned in any SpongeBob article since the Yellow Album one was redirected to the show's main page. While a Google search shows this song as the first topic, there's also a bonus track on the Best Buy edition of Builders of the Future called "Hey, All You People," so I'm thinking we should delete it or retarget it to the Best Buy section of the aforementioned album's article unless a justification can be provided. Regards, SONIC678 01:56, 28 September 2021 (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.

All You Need Is Friends[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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:30, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another one from SpongeBob SquarePants: The Yellow Album (see the Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 27#B.C. Strut), which I'm listing separately because there's a song of that same title in Felix the Cat: The Movie that's also worth considering. I'm not sure this needs to redirect to SpongeBob's article, but I'm also kinda torn between deleting it and retargeting to Felix the Cat: The Movie#Musical numbers, since it isn't mentioned on any SpongeBob article. Regards, SONIC678 01:46, 28 September 2021 (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.

Long roll[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Drum roll. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 09:45, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target as an alternative name, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 00:09, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Drum roll. It's a prolonged drum roll. There are a lot of historical references to "Long roll" as a call to arms, such as the Civil War expression "beat the long roll". It's referred to as "a particular kind of drum roll" in the article on Beat to quarters and it can be heard in the background of the audio clips. It is also used before a Big reveal, in which case the presenter sometimes says "drum roll please". Someone should really expand the article on Drum roll to include cultural use of Long roll as a subtopic, and add "Drum roll" to the topic on the "Big reveal" (with sourcing, of course). In any case, drum roll is a primary topic for "long roll". The fact that these articles don't specifically mention the term "long roll" weakens this argument considerably, of course. It is mentioned in Drum_rudiment#Roll_rudiments as per Lenticel. However, the term "long roll" is more often used to mean a prolonged drum roll than to refer to the particular drumming technique used in an "open roll". It could also refer to List of bread rolls as it's a type of Italian bread roll. We could add a hatnote to Drum roll, but I think Long roll as a type of bread is more of an adjectival phrase than a specific term needing disambiguation. Coastside (talk) 16:51, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm fine with retargetting it to drum roll if an editor can expand it to include long roll there --Lenticel (talk) 02:01, 29 September 2021 (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/2021_September_28&oldid=1048548918"