Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2006 November 27

November 27

WP:NUKE → Wikipedia:Deletion policy

This is a bit of an unorthodox listing. The redirect has been deleted, but there is still some disagreement about its existence and so it is appropriate to list it for discussion here. There is discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_policy#New_shortcut.3F and at [[Talk:WP:NUKE]] regarding this shortcut, though I'm sure the four parties involved up to now will be reiterating their positions here. BigNate37_(T) 16:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as it has the potential to bite people whose content is being deleted. We had similar redirects deleted for speedy deletion templates, like {{crap}} used to redirect to one of the db templates. {{useless}} used to link to some template that said the article needed a picture, if I recall. Those were deleted for their antagonistic connotations. I see a problem with this shortcut in the negative connotations to the word nuke and the potential for editors to have their work threatened to be WP:NUKED, which in the text medium can be easily mistaken for incivility or hostility where none is intended. Granted, the word has seen use in bulletin and message boards as a synonym for delete, but not everyone here will see it the same way as it is not common here. The BBS environment is often more hostile than would be tolerated at Wikipedia. BigNate37_(T) 16:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment WP:BITE seems to apply only to newbies, could it (WP:NUKE) also bite more experienced users, too? (if it bites all the newbies it's bad enough, if it also bites experienced fellas then the case against it is really, really tough) And remember -- how the word is used is important -- especially if it's used in a threat. And someone could also say "I'll WP:NUKE all your junk" (run your pointer over the link and you'll see it is piped), so the shortcut need not exist to be used "wrongly". 170.215.83.4 20:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this inflammatory redirect. It is in use on only 3 pages (with the other pages of what links here showing discussions about the redirect). From everything that I can tell, all actual use of this proposed redirect traces back to a single anonymous user who I believe to be trolling.
  Disclaimer: Per the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#New shortcut? and based on the comment made by SMcCandlish who apparently thought he/she was recreating a deleted link when no such link had ever previously existed, I speedy-deleted the redirect. I restored it at BigNate37's request to support this discussion. Rossami (talk) 19:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment & Questions I'm the one who started using the link, and would really not care too much if it is deleted. However, since some of the posts I made containing it have been archived, it might be kept for "historical reasons" with a disclaimer on it that this is all it should be for (would it be OK to modify archives in this case to remove the shortcut links? Esp. with the glaring "DO NOT EDIT" boilerplate on top). Furthermore, are we really sure that it is this offensive? Have a significant number of people been offended by it (ie. it's proven offensive)? Or are you just hypothesizing that it is/can be offensive without any actual proof? Also, couldn't the usage determine whether or not it is offensive -- for example "here on the Deletion Policy, at WP:NUKE it says ..." VS "Shut up and quit doing tat or I'll WP:NUKE all your crap!" The former might not be offensive, whereas the latter is very likely to be so. If this is the case, then the shortcut itself is relatively neutral. However, if a lot of people get offended simply by seeing the word, then it's probably too offensive and should either be deleted or clearly marked "historical" and "discouraged". In other words, we need some evidence that it's really as bad as some have claimed. If a lot of people have actually been offended by it then I suggest to delete it (Get it? WP:NUKE WP:NUKE!), otherwise keep even if only for historical purposes. 170.215.83.4 20:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per BigNate37 and Rossami; name may cause unnecessary friction. Dar-Ape 22:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • What evidence is there that it will do that? What we need proof of is that it is likely to cause offense to ("bite") both newbies and experienced users alike even when used in good faith. "In good faith" means that it is not being used to attack or disparage someone or other "malicious" behavior, but simply as a casual, legit reference like "On WP:NUKE there is this...", etc.. These are important questions that I've brought up that those here have yet to respond to. These questions are the ones that decide whether or not WP:NUKE should be kept or deleted. Like I've said, I offer a conditional: Delete WP:NUKE or keep it only as a historical piece with clear warning in order to avoid redlinks in talk archives, if it's proven to be able to cause offense even when used in good faith and calm discussion, otherwise keep as a regular redirect. I would definitely like some answers to the questions and points I've raised here. 170.215.83.4 23:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment Why risk it? Even if it only fanned the flames of a discussion once, this is once too many. With neutral redirects WP:DP, WP:DEL, and WP:DELETE, there is no reason to have another one with the possibility of making it difficult for users to keep their cool after they realized they've just had their article NUKEd, even if this realization comes as they're redirected from WP:NUKE. Additionally, very few redlinks will be created, and these can be fixed quickly. Dar-Ape 06:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Savannah (Cat) → Savannah (cat)

The article is now at the correct Savannah (cat), I don't think a redirect for the incorrect capitalization is needed anymore Finiteyoda 02:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• I tagged it as {{R from other capitalisation}}. No harm in leaving it there, in my opinion, so I'd vote to keep. BigNate37_(T) 16:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per BigNate37. Danny Lilithborne 03:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per BigNate37. Tommy11111 04:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

New Order of Celestial Bodies → 2006 definition of planet

Unlikely search term (who refers to the 'order of celestial bodies'?), orphan, target article is linked in a great many places. Michaelbusch 03:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete. Originally created as an article by someone using the POV that the redefinition was bad. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)