Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 June 29

< Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion | Log

June 29

edit

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 29, 2019.

Singles match

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 10#Singles match

Chris Johnson (architect)

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. Deryck C. 14:55, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target. Looks like there's a Chris Johnson that works for Gensler in a management position, but the target says nothing about him and I don't think he's synonymous enough with the company to justify this redirect. signed, Rosguill talk 20:58, 29 June 2019 (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.

Sonic 2014

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. Deryck C. 14:55, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't appear to be a name for the series; searching online for "Sonic 2014" returns results for the Chevrolet Aveo (aka Chevrolet Sonic) signed, Rosguill talk 20:53, 29 June 2019 (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.

2004–05 season in association football

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. Deryck C. 14:55, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to a category, which is discouraged. To make matters worse, the categories grouped at the target cut off at 1980; to get to an actual list of 2004-05 seasons, a reader would still have to make several clicks on links from the target (and the correct sequence is not labeled: you'd have to identify what kind of league you're looking through, then click through on it, but just opening the drop-down menu would not be sufficient) signed, Rosguill talk 20:46, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:42, 3 July 2019 (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 Democracy

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. Deryck C. 14:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect should be deleted, it is a decidedly wrong translation of the party's Italian name. Wololoo (talk) 20:42, 29 June 2019 (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.

Middle-of-the-road Italy

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. Deryck C. 14:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect should be deleted, it is an unusual and not literally correct translation. Wololoo (talk) 20:28, 29 June 2019 (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.

Flarrow

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 10#Flarrow

Mortal Kombat (2013 Film)

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. Deryck C. 14:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not a 2013 movie, which is currently scheduled for 2021. Implausible redirect with no purpose. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:37, 29 June 2019 (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.

Thai peoples

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 10#Thai peoples

Trajectory (Flash episode)

edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. --BDD (talk) 19:05, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This redirects uses an incorrect disambiguation "Flash" instead of "The Flash" and already has a correct redirect at Trajectory (The Flash episode) and has no incoming links. It should be noted that out of all the 119 The Flash episode redirects, this is the only one using this incorrect dab. Gonnym (talk) 08:52, 29 June 2019 (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.

Scar Tissue (Camila Cabello song)

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 10#Scar Tissue (Camila Cabello song)

Transformation Biscuts

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) 20:13, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article. Steel1943 (talk) 02:04, 29 June 2019 (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.

Memory Bread for Testing

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) 20:12, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article. Steel1943 (talk) 02:02, 29 June 2019 (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:SANFRANJANBANSFRAM

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 per criterion G10. However you feel about adding humour to a toxic situation, this is a page which was created specifically to attack a named living person, and is unlikely to serve any other purpose. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:22, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A long redirect name that almost no one will use. WP:FRAM is enough. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 01:30, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 
You know, I wonder your halo doesn't grow heavy. It must be like wearing a tiara around the clock.






EEng 20:46, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the latter half of my above comment would be interpreted as an obvious joke, and I am sure if Anne drew Andrew and Drew and BD2412 have seen it that is how they took it. But AFBorchert apparently has no sense of humor and decided to come to my talk page with an apparently totally sincere jab at me, insinuating that I am a white supremacist.[1] Just something to think about for any closer who thinks "Maybe the delete !voters understand the joke and just don't think it's funny." Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:01, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Really, it's stunning. Connoisseurs will want to read the whole exchange: [2]. EEng 12:41, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 
 
Thanks, WaltCip, but what am I going to do with these?
Please refrain from creating a hostile environment by joking about people's disabilities. EEng 15:22, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WaltCip, I removed the file link to File:Kudos Chocolate Chip.gif since it is a fair-use file, and fails WP:NFCC#8 (this page is not Kudos (granola bar)) and WP:NFCC#9 (this page is not an article) with its use here. Steel1943 (talk) 13:52, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Phooey. Guess we ought not run the risk of being sued by Hershey's ever-present legal team, who I am sure hawkishly monitors internal Wikipedia pages such as this. WaltCip (talk) 14:46, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, this and that are two different things.--WaltCip (talk) 21:49, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(The discussion was originally closed at this point. Steel1943 (talk) 08:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC))

We've had quite enough, in the last few weeks, of people trying to substitute their judgment for that of the community. Coffee tried some shit like this last year (see [3] and – especially for the notion that there's some kind of "attack" here – [4]) and as you may recall that did not end well for him (WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive225#EEng).
At this point I had planned to restore the redirect and tell you to go soak your head (but in a nice way, because I consider you a friend) but while brushing my teeth just now I though of an improved redirect that avoids your concern (trumped up, nugatory, and wrongheaded though that concern was): WP:CANSANFRANBANFRAM? (I get some of my best ideas while brushing my teeth – I really should do it more often.)
EEng 09:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC) P.S. I'm surprised no one's suggested this heretofore, but what we really need is for someone to write up the current contretemps in the form of verse in the manner of Dr. Zeuss – you know:[reply]
I AM FRAM.
FRAM I AM.
THAT FRAM-I-AM! THAT FRAM-I-AM! I DO NOT LIKE THAT FRAM-I-AM!
WOULD YOU LIKE A BAN OF FRAM?
DOWN ENWIKI'S THROAT TO RAM?
WOULD YOU BAN HIM FOR A YEAR?
ISSUE RATIONALES UNCLEAR?
IS IT TRANSPARENCY YOU FEAR?
I realize that went downhill fast, but it's harder than you might think. Levivich, this may be up your alley.— Preceding unsigned comment added by EEng (talk • contribs)
No. Attack pages are attack pages and regardless of whether some find them funny, they should be speedily deleted. I was considering making the exact same call as Ivanvector. SmartSE (talk) 12:53, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, is this the quality of reasoning we can look forward to from what's left of the admin corps from now on? Tautologies such as Attack pages are attack pages don't help. The question is: Does it attack someone? No, because an obvious play on words isn't an attack just because it doesn't encapsulate the WMF org chart.
If you want to say that right now tensions are high so maybe it doesn't strike the right note, or Jan Whatshisname has a fragile ego so we don't want to hurt his feelings, or that it's a poor idea because someone lacking subtlety of thinking might think it's an attack, those would be sensible points to make in a deletion discussion. But that it's an actual attack? It's lunacy. By your numbskull reasoning I guess we'll be deleting WP:Songs about Wikipedia/The Night Jimbo Went Crazy (attacks Jimbo) and WP:Kick the ass of anyone who renominates GNAA for deletion before 2007 (threatens violence). EEng 15:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That was not an attack page by any stretch of the imagination, and certainly not according to policy. Jan's department did in fact ban Fram. The close was a WP:SUPERVOTE.- MrX 🖋 17:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shame, Given the shit storm recently this place needed humour and this redirect provided it,
G10 states "Pages that disparage, threaten, intimidate, or harass their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose" however A) It's not a page and B) It doesn't disparage, threaten, intimidate, or harass anyone,
I'm not angry ... just disappointed. –Davey2010Talk 17:39, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My own instinct was to delete, if not speedy, the redirect, but yesterday I considered proposing a SNOW close in the other direction as I can tell when I am out!voted. I don't generally approve of redirects that aren't created for the purpose of, um, redirection, but EEng's alternative at least avoids the "attack" element that was troubling about the original. Most importantly, I would very much like to avoid yet another rancorous debate at this stage, so I wonder if people would consider letting this one go. (My plans for a limerick contest, for verses beginning "There once was a sysop named Fram," are on hold until the current unpleasantness is, I hope, resolved.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:38, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


@Ivanvector and Smartse: Can you explain which part or parts of the following you don't agree with, and why?
  1. Yes, "Attack pages are attack pages and regardless of whether some find them funny, they should be speedily deleted", but the question is whether it was an attack page. A page the full text of which is "[such and such a named person] is a cunt" is clearly an attack page, and any administrator should delete it on sight. However, even though you thought this was an attack page, it must have been abundantly clear to you from the discussion above that many people don't, and indeed that there appeared to be a consensus developping that it wasn't.
  2. While pages which unambiguously qualify for speedy deletion can be deleted summarily without discussion, pages where there is any reasonable likelihood of doubt should be discussed. On this occasion there was not merely "reasonable likelihood of doubt", there was considerable actual doubt, clearly and unambiguously expressed in the discussion above.
  3. The lead of the policy Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion says "Speedy deletion is intended to reduce the time spent on deletion discussions for pages or media with no practical chance of surviving discussion." It must have been blatantly clear to you from the discussion above that there was a very practical chance of surviving discussion.
  4. Whatever Ivanvector's motivation in skipping the discussion and speedily deleting may have been, he (or she, but "Ivan" suggests he) must have known that there would be a risk that other editors would see it as a supervote to prevent the discussion reaching a result that he personally didn't want. If that really had been his intention then it would have been a flagrant abuse of an administrative tool, whereas if (as I hope) it was not his intention then it was highly questionable judgement to take an action which was certain to be seen that way by some editors.
I look forward to reading and considering your answers, if any.
@EEng: At first I was going to admonish you for creating the second redirect, because which was clearly a provocative act, despite my opinion of the deletion. However, I thought again, and decided not to. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:04, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@JamesBWatson: (responding to ping) the first part of the title, SANFRANJAN ("San Fran Jan"), in the context of the page which this title redirected to and the incidents being discussed there, is clearly meant to be a derogatory reference to Jan Eissfeldt, a named living person. The second part, JANBANSFRAM ("Jan bans Fram"), also states in Wikipedia's voice a course of controversial events which we do not know and cannot be reliably sourced. I appreciate efforts to inject some humour into the situation and I don't have any problem with any other redirects that EEng creates pointing to that page, and I chuckled when I read it, but we have a policy against using Wikipedia to make fun of living persons, and as there are already more useful and appropriate shortcuts to the page, it served no other purpose. Regardless of how many editors think it's funny, it was going to be deleted; WP:BLP does not have an exemption for things a lot of editors find funny, and that (along with hand-waves to IAR) were literally the only "keep" comments. Leaving the discussion open just emboldens more editors to take their own personal jabs at a named person. Also, my gender preferences are set in the software and also indicated on my user page, but I appreciate the effort to be inclusive. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:50, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector: Thanks for replying. I understand what you have said, and I agree with some of it and disagree with other parts. I note, though, that it does not actually address the points that I raised. As for your sex (or "gender preferences" as you, in line with current English usage, prefer to call it, but I am old enough to still feel that use of "gender" as an error) I do now see that the little symbol for male does appear on your user page, thanks to some script or something that I installed ages ago that tells me what you have set in your preferences (I am not sure how I missed it before) and also that you say that you "identify as male". I usually both check for user boxes and search for "male" on the page, but this time I did only the former. However, since you also say that you "won't take offense" at any pronouns, I'm not sure why I'm bothering to write this. Oh well, it's done now. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ivanvector: So will you be addressing JBW's queries, or not? My respect for you is on the line, and while you may or may not care about that, I certainly do. EEng 22:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@JamesBWatson: on the subject of whether or not I addressed the points raised by your set of leading questions, I disagree, and I have nothing further to add. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:55, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@JamesBWatson: It was fairly instinctive as soon as I saw the redirect listed at WP:FRAM and I think that goes beyond pointing to any specific part of policy i.e. IAR as it is in the spirit of G10 if not 100% in line with CSD policy. Personalising the dispute by naming Jan doesn't help us at all and we should always err on the side of caution whenever real people are involved (just as with the deletion of the signpost article today). What was EEng's motivation for creating the page if not to disparage Jan? It's certainly not a shortcut is it? It was seemingly an attempt at humour, but that is no excuse. As evidenced by the new redirect, if we really need a funny 'short'cut to the page, we can do that without disparaging anyone. SmartSE (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Smartse, that you are able to ask What was EEng's motivation for creating the page if not to disparage Jan, then you obviously have not, even at this late date, read the discussion above. Will you be addressing JBW's queries, or just stick with "it was fairly instinctive" as justification for substituting your judgment for the collective judgment of 40 other editors? EEng
  • Just a thought, but I noticed that there is a lot of energy for writing stuff here, and it occurred to me that a neat thing to do with that energy would be to build and improve content in an encyclopedia. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:39, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently some of see significance here you're unable to, such as an admin supervoting against clear consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EEng (talk • contribs) 22:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This is an argument over whether to keep a joke redirect that has nothing to do with any encyclopedic content. bd2412 T 23:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    What part of an admin supervoting against clear consensus do you not understand? EEng 23:32, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @EEng: Do you have any drive to take this to WP:DRV per its procedure? If not, I'll go ahead and encapsulate this discussion so that it doesn't appear expanded on the main WP:RFD page. Steel1943 (talk) 21:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    A discussion is being had with the closing admin, as called for by procedure. If you're not interested, ignore it. EEng 22:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ivanvector, I think you made a dubious choice here. It's not really an attack just because it can be identified as referring to someone: picture somebody saying "I can see why Jan did that", which is obviously not an attack, and is just as compatible with the redirect as is the interpretation that it was criticizing Jan. And the last thing that en-wiki needs right now is an admin action that prompts editors to go to DRV (which is me taking what BD2412 just said, and aiming it in the other direction). --Tryptofish (talk) 21:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Tryptofish: I rather agree that the last thing we need right now is a discussion like this going to WP:DRV; however, this threaded post-close discussion is starting to blog down the main WP:RFD page, and I have a feeling more comments are coming. It's getting to a point where either reopening this discussion or going to WP:DRV should probably happen by default to make sure the energy displayed here (if forced to remain towards this redirect [I echo BD2412's opinion]) basically doesn't go to waste on the "wrong forum". Steel1943 (talk) 22:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      We can afford to remain here a bit longer while waiting to see whether Ivanv or SmarstSE respond. EEng 22:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Steel1943 has it right. When I collapsed this discussion, I didn't supervote at all; rather, I was trying to encourage the discussion to move to a venue that could actually make something happen. If your intention is to discuss the close with the closing admin, this is not the right place: User talk:Ivanvector is. If your intention is to try and get a community consensus to overturn the closure, this is not the right place: WP:DRV is. You may move this discussion to either one of these locations, but the improper move would be to continue this here as if the RfD were still open, cluttering the main WP:RFD page. Mz7 (talk) 23:07, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@EEng: I would suggest just starting a DRV. It doesn't seem that the closing admin is receptive to reversing the close.- MrX 🖋 23:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Given all that's going on now I'm going to forego a DRV. To be honest the real issue is ADMINACCT, but I'm gonna let that slide too because Ivanvector has a good deal of goodwill banked with me. (SmartSE seems beyond hope.) Of course, anyone else is free to open a thread in either of the appropriate forums, in which case I'll participate. EEng 06:30, 2 July 2019 (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/2019_June_29&oldid=1138582766"