Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 August 12

< August 11

August 13 >

August 12

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 12, 2008

Wikipedia:BRIT → Wikipedia:British Isles Terminology task force

The shortcut WP:BRIT is ambigous and confusing here. We already have other redirects for this taskforce. British Isles includes the two islands of Great Britain and Ireland, and two sovereign states, the UK and the Republic of Ireland. The taskforce was set up to deal with problems relating to the fact that the Republic or Ireland is not in Britain (though part of the island it is in - Northern Ireland - is part of the UK). WP:BRIT here simply misleads on that matter, and can be seen as either a move to remove Ireland from the British Isles, or a move to make Britain the important factor! It's just simply not needed, either way. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

ad hominen → ad hominem

I've seen this used repeatedly on Talk pages by the same person, as the working link makes it look correct. It gives others the impression that it is the correct spelling too. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment: In the cases like this is it right to redirect? I don't think it's all that wise in any case - there should be a special page for all misspellings - not a seamless redirect to the correct article! Maybe a 'Did you mean?' page that could redirect to the Wiktionary (or whatever it is called) and the main article too. A redirect simply cannot be right for clearly misspelled words like "ad hominen/m". It's just plain wrong, folks. And people's minds very often don't pick up on the difference, if anyone insists that this happens. The presence of a working link on Talk pages (as with the incorrect "ad hominen") makes people use it time and time again, and misleads others.--Matt Lewis (talk) 20:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Civility noticeboard → Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts

This page was originally a separate noticeboard deleted in 2006 at MfD. Given that the primary purpose of Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts is to handle matter relating to civility, I'd like to suggest this redirect be created as an alternate way to refer to the page and its purpose, without using a wikilink mask. MBisanz ^talk 17:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Create(?) - seems sensible enough (hey, WP:BOLD?), with the added bonus of masking the uncivil (if comical) delete log. Ian¹³/t 17:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
• Create: sounds like a good idea, and there are almost no archived redlinks to it likely to cause confusion. I don't understand what Ian13 means by masking the delete log though since deletion logs are still visible for recreated articles. Olaf Davis | Talk 19:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
• Create - Sure, why not? Tiptoety ^talk 20:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Public transport crashes → List of United Kingdom disasters by death toll

Not a valid redirect Edward (talk) 13:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Public transport crashes can occur anywhere; not just the UK. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - They have very little to do with each, along with the fact that public transportation crashes do not just happen in the United Kingdom. Tiptoety ^talk 17:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:GANG → Wikipedia:Tag team

Clearly inappropriate target. One could make a case for WP:CABAL. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• How is this clearly inappropriate? "two or more editors work[ing] in concert in a disruptive way" sounds like a description of people 'ganging up' to me. Olaf Davis | Talk 15:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: "Two or more" is a "criminal organization?" Wow! I would regard two or more as cooperation, and alleging that every two or three people who disagree with you are disruptive is fantastically insulting. No. We do not need to encourage people to write personal essays about their experiences in name space, and we especially do not wish to perpetuate that embattled, nasty spirit in redirects. This is an attempt at antagonizing. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Your referring to 'criminal organisations' surprised me at first: I'd been thinking of gang as in 'ganging up' and not as in criminal gangs (I suspect this may have to do with dialectic differences: the article gang notes that the word's usage for non-criminal groups is more common in England than elsewhere). With this in mind Arthur's remark suddenly makes sense, and I wouldn't oppose the deletion. Olaf Davis | Talk 18:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Martinphi's comment below has convinced me that my original instinct was right: there's nothing wrong with referring to 'tag-team' editing as 'gang editing' for the reasons he gives, so Keep. Whether WP:Tag team is appropriate at all, which Arthur seems to believe it's not, is a matter to be brought up at MfD and not here. Olaf Davis | Talk 18:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. "Gang editing" is a used phrase, and refers to what the essay talks about- and happens from all sides of issues. While gang editing exists, I haven't heard the term used for the cabal, though I may just not have been around that. Anyway, there was no reason given for deletion. If a good reason exists, then we should hear of it. A "Gang" is 1. "An association of criminals" and 2. "An informal body of friends" and 3. "An organized group of workmen." So it applies well and don't assume only one of the meanings is the one meant, as with Utgard Loki above. Further, even thinking of it as criminal is ok, as "criminal" on WP is against policy and the spirit of the community, which this type of editing definitely is. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 18:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Cite for "Gang editing" being used. No comment on whether the essay should be deleted (as I think it should) or userfied, as acting on it is almost certainly contrary to the WP:PILLARS. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - Violates WP:NPA to start with - using that link to identify another editor is insulting at the least, and implies they are marauding about the encyclopedia smashing articles and threatening the well-being of others. Unfortunately, as I note here, the description of "tag-teaming" used in this essay can just as easily be applied to long-time, well-respected, good-faith editors who are in disagreement on a particular article. The shortcut is pejorative and is clearly intended to be so. Let's not go down this road. Risker (talk) 19:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

One should never do that: one should refer to an article as the victim of gang editing, not an editor as a gang editor- which wouldn't make sense anyway. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 19:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

One shouldn't, but that is exactly what will happen. People will get a notice on their talk page referring them to WP:GANG or telling them that they are editing like WP:GANG. One needs to think about what will happen, not just what should happen. Risker (talk) 19:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

SPADE is misused as well, as is WP:PEACOCK, WP:DICK, WP:DUCK, WP:POT WP:KETTLE And you are lynching Negroes, WP:MAJORDICK etc. This doesn't mean they're bad, just that uncivil editors are going to find a way. The important thing is 1) the shortcut correctly describes the behavior, and 2) the essay says not to do it, and what it is. What I'm saying is, yeah, people might use it in an uncivil manner, but that is another matter. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it does not describe the behaviour. WP:GANG is an inappropriate shortcut for an essay in Wikipedia space. I have never seen some of those used, in particular And you are lynching Negroes and WP:MAJORDICK, and I would point out the former is actually an article and is neither a redirect, a shortcut nor something in Wikipedia space. WP:PEACOCK relates to content, not contributor. Of the rest, not one of those shortcuts implies violence or mayhem on the part of the editor being tagged. Risker (talk) 20:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

But gang editing is violence and mayhem to the wiki space. It's a matter of the content of the essay, not the redirect. But they are subject to the same abuse: "Don't be a gamer/peacock/dick, and "Please don't lynch everyone," "you can get with it or fuck off, with this last having the added appeal of plausible deniability when accused of incivility. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:POVPUSH Another ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Gratuitous → Gratis versus Libre

"Gratuitous" (unnecessary) appears to be confused with "Gratis" ("free") .CrispMuncher (talk) 15:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - there's no such thing as 'free as in insult'"! Interestingly it originally went to free and was changed, suggesting two editors made the same mistake. Olaf Davis | Talk 18:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - I've seen a few editors who might be happy with this one! Perhaps it's an ironically subtle way of criticising WP like WP:CIV.--Matt Lewis (talk) 20:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)