Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 August 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 21[edit]

Assburger → Asperger syndrome[edit]

The result of the debate was no consensus. -- John Reaves 23:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seemingly created as vandalism, but unknown for sure OcciMoron 16:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Definitely vandalism. Tagged as such. Melsaran (talk) 17:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The speedy-deletion was over-turned as out-of-process. Except in the case of the recreation of deleted content, speedy-deletions may not be used when there has already been an XfD discussion on the topic. This was discussed and decided back in Feb 2007. The discussion then was closed as "keep" as a plausible typo. Unless there has been an RfD discussion in the meantime which overturned that decision (and I didn't see one documented anywhere), the speedy-deletion was in error.
      I am re-opening this discussion as a procedural matter in case anyone wants to argue to overturn the previous decision. Rossami (talk) 17:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a plausible typo misspelling. Also apply the result of this discussion to Assburger's syndrome, which was also deleted out-of-process after an rfd. --- RockMFR 17:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good catch. Restored pending the conclusion of this discussion. Rossami (talk) 22:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I concur that this is plausible (if unfortunate) typo.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 00:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course it's not a plausible typo. I don't know how you pronounce "assburger", but it's certainly not really a plausible misspelling of "Asperger", at the very most a joke. And if this should exist at all it should redirect to Asperger, not to Asperger syndrome. Melsaran (talk) 13:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please see the pronunciation notes below. Rossami (talk) 03:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A conceivable erroneous spelling, innocently created, but in practice an offensive disparagement. DGG (talk) 03:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC) .[reply]
    • If it's a conceivable misspelling, why would we delete it? Being offensive in itself is not a good reason for deletion if other arguments are present. --- RockMFR 22:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is obviously meant as disparagement, and I don't believe it's a likely search term at all. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both, retargeting assburger to Asperger. How can you all label this "obvious vandalism" so quickly? Those that did need to take a break and re-read some pages in project space, specifically Wikipedia:Vandalism and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Comments like "of course it's not a plausible typo" and "this is obviously meant as disparagement" are narrow-minded and inappropriate per WP:AGF and WP:EQT. Nobody knows the intent with which this redirect was created, and calling it vandalism shows seriously flawed judgment. More to the point, here in Canada, I've only heard Asperger pronounced exactly the same as one would pronounce assburger. It is easily believable that someone (albeit not someone very mature) would hear the term Asperger and search this. Of course it shouldn't be linked to in the mainspace, but it serves to aid searches. BigNate37(T) 14:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete offensive disparagement per DGG. Carlossuarez46 22:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • After doing some research, I'm forced to conclude keep. According to Merriam-Webster, Asperger's should be pronounced 'äs-"p&r-g&rz. Most people I know, however, mispronounce it as 'as-"p&r-g&rz (a minor difference only in the leading vowel sound and within the normal range of regional variations for vowel pronunciations). Concatenating the M-W entries for ass and burger gives 'as-'b&r-g&r (a difference only in the second consonant and some ambiguity over which syllable to stress). The evidence suggests that this is a plausible attempt at a phonetic spelling of the term.
    Urban Dictionary recognizes the term as an accepted slang for a person with Asperger syndrome (though that's hardly a definitive source). Reviewing the rest of the google hits, none are definitive but they are sufficient to document the casual use of this spelling and, with a few exceptions, they all appear to be in the context of a person with Asperger's. The context also fails to support the claim that this spelling is used with the intent to be deliberately offensive. In fact, it most commonly appears to be used as a self-reference. I don't find it credible that so many people would deliberately use the term to describe themselves if it were as "obviously disparaging" as has been asserted above. Rossami (talk) 03:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - I've heard it pronounced like this many times, and it would be very easy for someone who heard it in conversation to assume this spelling, see Asburger. Unfortunate, but a valid and useful redirect. Herd of Swine 15:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the term may be a remotely reasonable guess at a misspelling, but a quick Googling shows that it is far more prominant as a term of disparagement. The harm seems to me to outweigh the good here. Phil Sandifer 01:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What exactly is the harm? It's a redirect to catch an occasional misspelling, exactly like asburger. Herd of Swine 17:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because "assburgers" is an insulting term for suffers of this. It's the same harm as redirecting nigger to African-American. Though there's a misspelling possibility here, I don't think it's a likely enough misspelling to outweigh the basic offensiveness of the redirect. Phil Sandifer 17:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment If it's the same harm, then maybe the page should be set up as such, stating "Assburger is a pejorative term used to refer to people with Asperger syndrome...."--Old Hoss 05:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • That is a far better idea than maintaining the redirect. Phil Sandifer 22:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm not so sure... do we have any sources stating that this is a pejorative term? --- RockMFR 22:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • [1] Phil Sandifer 22:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • That's not a reliable source. Making a disambig or dicdef page isn't a good route to go - we're not urbandictionary. If we're going to include this term, it should be on the basis of it being a misspelling. --- RockMFR 23:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Then we shouldn't have it - if Urban Dictionary and the like aren't reliable enough for citation, that's fine, but it's patently obvious that this is an offensive term. Phil Sandifer 00:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Phil, that links shows up to me as a google-search, not a specific citation. When I reviewed the google hits, I found the Urban dictionary link, several references to this debate (and the previous one) and then pages of use of the term as a self-reference. Of the links I spot-checked, none appeared to me to be obviously pejorative or hostile. Could you please lay out your evidence more clearly? Thanks. Rossami (talk) 13:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Huh - I found a bunch of perjorative right off the bat: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. Note that I am taking as a given that anybody who is seriously using the word "assburger" to refer to somebod with Aspergers is doing so disparagingly. If you decline to grant this premise, OK, I probably can't convince you, but there are bigger issues at that point. Phil Sandifer 14:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                    • The first link is Urban Dictionary - already discussed (and to some degree discounted) above. The first example in their entry (the Einstein comparison) is neutral. The other two are hostile but at the level of a third-grader. (Children say lots of mean things. That doesn't make every word they use inherently bad nor should we be censoring the project just because it makes a third-grader giggle.) In the second and fourth links you cite, the authors are using the term to describe themselves. The usage is neither obviously pejorative or obviously complimentary. (By the way, if you keep going through the google list and you'll see lots more like those.) The third link is an semi-incoherent rant that doesn't have any connection that I can see to the page's title. What sense there is to the page indicates that it's a rant against the parents, not against the children. As evidence of disparaging usage, I don't see it. The fifth link is..., well, I don't know what it is. If it represents someone's sense of humor, I don't get it. If it's supposed to be an insult, I don't get that either.
                      I think the problem is that, as you said, you are taking it as a given that any use of the term must be disparaging. I do not take that as a given. I'm trying to find evidence. Rossami (talk) 21:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                      • OK - do me a favor and back away from the question of whether Urban Dictionary is a reliable source for citation, and away from close reading of the various sources. Clearly the term is in use to refer to people with Asperger's, and it is in use knowingly, not as a misspelling. Furthermore, it is clear that the term is offensive - one does not need to do a deep reading into the usage to see this, as the term wears its offensiveness on its sleave. I am honestly mystified as to why there is even debate on this point. Phil Sandifer 00:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, but keep nonetheless. I have to be honest, the only reason I responded to this RfD was because I can never remember what the real name of this disease is, and admittedly I have referred to it as "Assburgers, or something...." and people usually know what I mean. In hindsight, I see how that is offensive and will not use it any longer, but I never thought of that. My point is, unfortunately, I believe the redirect is beneficial to the encyclopedia even though it is offensive, just as the example you used was, because that is how I would have found it. I see why one would want it removed to prevent Google from pulling it up, but that seems like Political Correctness censorship ala China. Maybe a section in the real article can be created stating something like "People with Asperger Syndrom find it offensive to refer to etc etc" (but would need a source I suppose) and the redirect could target that section?--Old Hoss 01:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Phil. Should be a speedy, per "attack page". >Radiant< 08:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

International Civil War II → World War I[edit]

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre 02:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless redirect apparently based on a neologism (the only source I could find was Urban Dictionary).--Isotope23 talk 15:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nonsensical redirect, original research. Melsaran (talk) 15:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep television reference, in addition to it fitting with the theories regarding a greater post-napoleonic "european civil war" on the World war page. --NEMT 16:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What "television reference"? If it's a meme from a certain television programme, then redirect it to the page about that programme (provided that "International Civil War II" is covered in the article). And if you think that "International Civil War II" is an alternative name for "World War I", and nobody else, then that's original research. Only two google hits, Urban Dictionary and Uncyclopedia, so I don't think that you're going to find a reliable source for this. Melsaran (talk) 17:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure this is the right RFD because the redirect is a competly different term from the target and could not possibily be considered a mispelling. There has also not been anything that even implies that the redirect was vandalism. Are you sure you did not mean to post this in the Assburger RFD because that would make a lot more sesne based on your comment. --67.71.76.43 04:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ... "international civil war" is a contradiction in terms. And why does "War II" redirect to "War I"? — Black Falcon (Talk) 03:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Land of the Switzers → Switzerland[edit]

The result of the debate was no consensus, defaults to keep. WjBscribe 03:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless redirect apparently based on a neologism. I can't imagine anyone would actually search on the term "Land of the Switzers".--Isotope23 talk 15:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Important etymological starting point. --NEMT 16:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --John 17:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Shirahadasha 22:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: a Google search reveals that this term is actually fairly common; it even occurs in a translation of Rabelais. I don't think it's even close to being a neologism, not that that would be relevant to a debate about a redirect. Xtifr tälk 09:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neologism or not, the term is not mentioned at the target. If and when content there reflects that this is a valid alternate name, then we should have this as a {{R from alternate name}}. Researching the term's validity is appropriate at the article and its talk page, not here. BigNate37(T) 14:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see "not mentioned at the target" in the list of deletion criteria, although I admit there is some precedent. But I've mostly seen that issue raised when there are concerns that the redirect is an inappropriate form of promotion for some aspect or brand of the target. In this case, I don't think there's any sort of promotion going on. In fact, it seems to be mildly archaic, but I think it's still widely used enough that it's value as a search term is quite high. If I were reading Rabelais and came across the term, I might guess that it refers to Switzerland, but I might want to check Wikipedia to make sure. I don't feel strongly about the matter, but redirects are cheap. I see no valid reason to delete this, and reason enough to keep. Xtifr tälk 09:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

WP:JUPE → Wikipedia:Protected titles[edit]

The result of the debate was Kept. -- JLaTondre 02:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly a subtle neologism. Doesn't even sound like having to do with deletion or protection. VoltronForce 14:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

information Note: This redirect was previously kept, after this nomination. Melsaran (talk) 15:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion only has three comments. VoL†ro/\/Force 15:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: no valid argument for deletion has been presented. WP:NEO applies to articles, not redirects. We have very liberal policies for redirects, and redirects from neologisms are kept all the time. Note that this opinion should not be considered prejudicial against a future nomination based on actual reasons. As for the previous debate, I should point out that these discussion have no quorum and admins make their closing based on strength of argument, not by vote-counting. One solid argument is all that's required. Xtifr tälk 09:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Jupe has been historically used on the internet to indicate that something is administratively unavailable. Dalnet, Effnet, and even Freenode use jupe as part of system settings. WP:NEO is not for redirects, or we'd have to be deleting almost ALL the shortcuts. — xaosflux Talk 01:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Enigmatode → Morgellons[edit]

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre 02:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Found this redirect converted form article on PROD with the reason: "There are no cites in the Enigmatode article and it seems to be original research that is all non-scientific hypothesis. I think it was nonsense and completely implausible and not worthy of a redirect to the Morgellons article which does not mention Enigmatode" - Since the redirect was only motivated by the content of the original article, but is not justified by the current target and no merge has been done I would second deletion. Tikiwont 14:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The absence of cites in the "enigmatode" article is simple to explain: after doing a little research, the only "sources" are from a commercial website run by the individual who coined the term, and created the WP article in the first place. The number of WP policies violated is substantial (it goes way beyond WP:NOR), and I'd also urge deletion. Dyanega 21:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A pointless redirect that serves only the single person who uses the word. Google reveals no notable sources, just board posts, probably by the same person. Herd of Swine 05:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Npov → WP:NPOV[edit]

The result of the debate was Kept. -- JLaTondre 02:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since NPOV is up for discussion too, I figure we might as well discuss this one. I'm not sure how to add it to the ongoing discussion, but since there is a concern that there shouldn't be a redirect to a Project-space from the article space, I think there needs to be something done here. At the least, the decision should be consistent. My suggestion is to redirect this to Neutral or Objectivity (journalism) instead. Neutral Point of View is at least an existing concept in journalism, and the simple NPOV abbreviation is conventional enough that it should go somewhere. FrozenPurpleCube 05:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - most people who search this page are already familiar with the address. Onnaghar tl | co 13:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Not all people know to put WP first. VoltronForce 14:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the arguments made in the NPOV discussion above. (By preference, this nomination should be merged with the one above. Whatever decision we reach, it should be consistent.) Rossami (talk) 17:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep these two as useful exceptions. DGG (talk) 03:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - 99.99% of the time if someone types in "npov", they want to go to WP:NPOV, so it's a very useful redirect. Redirecting to anywhere else would be pointless and counterproductive. Herd of Swine 15:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Everything on User:Interiot/Reports/cross-namespace redirects except redirects to the Category namespace[edit]

The result of the debate was Kept. This is way too broad of a nomination. Precedent has repeatedly shown that while generally cross-namespace redirects are deleted, the community does occasionally see sufficient value in certain ones to keep them. Also, we have a {{rfd}} tag for a reason. It should be used when nominating redirects for deletion. -- JLaTondre 00:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We should finally get rid of these unnecessary cross-namespace redirects. For reasons why they are harmful, see WP:CNR. For precedents, see BJAODN, Hatnotes, RC Patrol, and Listcruft. It should be noted that some of these CNRs are really ridiculous, because they can also apply to non-Wikipedia-related stuff (e.g. merges, Current Events, resolving disputes, ignore all rules, target page, ... Melsaran (talk) 12:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - per nom. Onnaghar tl | co 13:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since some of these would be more appropriately targeted elsewhere, I suggest at least looking through the list and seeing what should be done, as opposed to a blanket response that may leave unnecessary gaps. And some like Wikipedia Village Pump or WikiProject:Comics may be acceptable. Others perhaps not. FrozenPurpleCube 14:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd prefer an outright ban on non-shortcut cross-namespace redirects to namespaces other than Category:, but if there's significant bjection to deleting them all, we can indeed nominate them separately. Melsaran (talk) 14:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, if you're going to make an outright ban, I suggest articulating the particulars more explicitly. Do you consider redirects to Portals acceptable? In any case, I do suspect there's going to be objection to a blanket deletion when you haven't noted the redirect discussions on the involved pages. FrozenPurpleCube 15:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'd say that "list from [...]" redirects to categories are acceptable, because those categories do essentially show a list when you view them directly. Portals, not sure, you could say that it's reasonably logical that "current events" redirects to a portal listing some current events. Cross-namespace redirects to the Wikipedia: and Help: namespace are bad, and should all be deleted, imo. Melsaran (talk) 17:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose in the strongest possible terms (again). The mass-nomination is a bad idea and has been rejected every time it's been proposed. The specific situations around many of these redirects are unique. Some of the listed redirects predate the creation of the various namespaces and are heavily linked in history and sometimes externally. Others have history which must be preserved in order to comply with the attribution requirements of GFDL. Some could be profitably retargetted. Some exist simply because they are helpful to readers - people who care about finding the information they need more than they care about some bureacratic compliance with an internal hierarchy of pagenaming. (This is particularly true of many redirects to the Wikipedia: and Help: namespaces.) And some of the listed redirects probably ought to be deleted. But all require actual thought and investigation. This mass-nomination is a sloppy solution that, if carried out, would do far more harm than good.
    By the way, there remains no consensus that cross-namespace redirects are inherently bad. Attempts to make that policy have so far failed. Attempting to create a de facto policy via this nomination is inappropriate. Rossami (talk) 17:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep again. There are too many issues involved with these to do them all at once. There is already consensus to keep some of them, some of them have histories that need to be maintained, and a lot of them are good redirects that are unlikely to be mixed up with mainspace searches. --- RockMFR 17:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Agree that while many of these redirects should ultimately be deleted, some do not and we should proceed on a case-by-case basis rather than delete en masse. Best, --Shirahadasha 22:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (without consideration of the merits of the redirects) unless explicitly listed here and tagged with {{rfd}}. This is per my reasoning at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 August 15#WPS:. Also recommend limiting blanket nominations to fewer, more closely related entries. BigNate37(T) 15:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep such an atomic deletion would be disruptive, and this is too massive to start having "Delete, except for a12,b16,c32,d8" replies in this discussion. This would be entirely without prejudice for more targeted nominations. — xaosflux Talk 01:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose only because the nomination is too broad and potential exceptions need more discussion than such a broad nomination can provide. This opinion should absolutely not be considered prejudicial towards individual (or smaller group) nominations. Xtifr tälk 21:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2007_August_21&oldid=1078530132"