Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 November 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion | Log

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 12:19, 10 February 2023 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

November 25

[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 25, 2013.

Wikipedia:Hotties are always notable

[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) 17:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Time to let this go out of the Wikipedia: namespace. Having it in GC's userspace, given his contributions and the fact that the essay is positively ancient, is (imho) no big deal. But the Wikipedia namespace redirect implies a project endorsement, and I think the project culture has moved past this sort of thing - for better and for worse. Nathan T 01:09, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It is generally a good idea to keep redirects for "userficiation" outside of the article namespace. The deletion note in the log was "R2", which doesn't apply outside of the article namespace for speedy deletions. I don't see a redirect is an endorsement, or else it would be standard practice to delete Wikipedia/Project namespace redirects for a lot more userfied pages. I've seen "serious" essays have "WP:" shortcut redirects where they never left the userspace. Maybe if the essay itself wasn't meant as a humor page, but as actual advice, then I could understand wanting to have "additional distance" from this. While I'm not nearly as active in XfDs as I once was, this might be the first time I've seen a project-space to user-space userfication that deleted the redirect from the original page location (excluding highly controversial situations). -- Ned Scott 02:42, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this and its "compatriot" redirects Wikipedia:Hotties are always notable and Wikipedia:Notability (hotness). Wikipedia space, including redirects, is not the place for sexist commentary. While this essay might be acceptable in userspace, GlassCobra's removal of images that intended to balance it somewhat (in one of his 12 edits in 2013) simply confirmed that its intention is to be sexist. Risker (talk) 04:35, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or similar) all three redirects in the Wikipedia namespace, and Wikipedia:FUGLY too if people don't mind considering that one as well. Fwiw, this redirect (and RfD) has been mentioned on the gender-gap mailing list. While the redirect at 'Wikipedia:HOTTIES' may not have any special endorsement value to the regular contributors to Wikipedia, to the outside world it does have endorsement value. If it is used in a 'notable' AFD today, the media will report on it, and not favourably unfortunately. We need less jingoism at AFD, and these are the most problematic. WP:HOTTIE has 250 incoming links from community discussions; I havent looked at them all, but I suspect that some of them are valuable links and I agree with Ned Scott that deleting this link isnt ideal. However we can update those discussion pages to use "WP:HOTTIE" to retain the contextual meaning. Another solution is to convert 'WP:HOTTIE' (and other WP: directs to userspace) into a page which links to the userspace page but is also marked as {{historical}}. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:37, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the same reasons I nominated it for deletion in 2010. The essay is fine, but we shouldn't have WP redirects to non-project space. Kaldari (talk) 13:56, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a reason to delete these redirects in particular. If you think we shouldn't have WP redirects to non-project space, start a combination RFC/RFD on WP redirects to non-project space. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 05:26, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Precisely the sort of essay that damages Wikipedia's reputation and makes it harder to recruit editors who find this sort of thing offensive. Making it harder to find can only help the Wiki. Powers T 15:05, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I also support deleting all WP-namespace redirects as proposed above. Powers T 16:56, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not going to put up a fight for something so silly, but if this RfD is going to include other targets then they should be marked as such. Maybe we should even consider rounding up all of the various "joke" redirects like this and doing one big discussion. I might disagree with you guys on this, but if we're going to spend time on it, we might as well kill multiple birds with one stone so we can get back to editing. -- Ned Scott 17:07, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Making a page harder to find is not a legitimate reason to delete a redirect. If we shouldn't have a page, we delete it. If we don't delete it, there's no legitimate reason to harder to find. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 05:38, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep first of all what's the problem with WP-space to user-space redirects? A redirect is a search aid, not an endorsement (much easier to type "wp:pagename" then "user:username/pagename"). An easy, let alone a humor page, in userspace is the user's personal opinion, regardless of whatever redirects lead to it. Even if the easy were sexist or jingoistic, or advocated jugging people by their physical appearance, that's an argument for deletion of the userpage, not the redirect. Besides, the redirect is the former title.
Secondly, even if this redirect were a serous endorsement the userpage, this page is is clearly satire. It doesn't promote judging people by their physical appearance, it ridicules the notion that people should be judged by their their physical appearance. As for the sexiest and jingoism arguments, what does this have to do with gender? Jugging people by their physical appearance is wrong regardless of the victim's gender.
The term "smokin' hot" is gender-neutral (who says that men can't be smokin' hot). Straight woman find smokin' hot men to be, well, smokin' hot, just like straight men find smokin' hot women to be smokin' hot. If the essay is jingoistic, it is euqely jingoistic against both men and women (with the partial exemption of the "General notability guideline" section). That someone would assume that the term "smokin' hot" automatically refers to a women, or think that it's only women who are judged by their physical appearance, says more about their own sexism than the author's.
The only thing I see that even hints of sexism is the "General notability guideline" section's use of only female examples, but it's probably just that the writer is a lesbian or straight male, no need to assume sexism. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 03:56, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is not so much that it's sexist than that it promotes the idea that a person's worth is based on his or her appearance. That can be off-putting, or even downright repellent, to people who are sensitive to the way society handles such issues. Sadly, it is women who are most affected on that count, and thus women we are most likely to be driving away by the promotion of this essay. That makes it a gender gap issue. Powers T 15:15, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's kind of my point; the notion that a person's worth is based on his or her appearance ought to be ridiculed to death. If the redirects are not a serious endorsement, then there is no reason to delete them. If the redirects are a serious endorsement, then deleting a redirect to satire that ridicules that notion only says that we support judging a person's worth by his or her appearance. There's a difference between idiots who judge a person's worth by his or her appearance, and people who point out how idiotic that is with satire. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:55, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: It is not clear from the above that every commenter is commenting on all the mentioned redirects, particularly as only the first was explicitly listed and some mentioned were not even tagged (which I will correct).
Note also that comments regarding anything other than the redirects to the essay are not relevant here and will not be considered by whomever closes this discussion. If anyone feels the content of the essay is inappropriate they should discuss in on its talk page or nominate it at Wikipedia:Miscellany for discussion. This discussion is only to determine whether the redirects Wikipedia:Hotties are always notable, Wikipedia:Notability (hotness), Wikipedia:FUGLY and/or Wikipedia:HOTTIE should be kept as redirects to the essay, retargetted elsewhere or deleted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 17:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I generally have a dim view of wp-space redirects to userspace. In this case we have satire but the redirects in question give it an air of authority that it doesn't deserve, especially on a sensitive topic. Things like notability (hotness) could be misconstrued. I suggest the fix for the incoming links is to ask a bot to direct them all to the essay directly. If someone wants to purge other wiki-space redirects to userspace I'll vote for killing those too likely.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:50, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - redirects from project to user space are generally to be avoided unless there is good reason which is absent here. Also, the redirects could imply a project endorsement of the essay which, of course, is not the case. The Whispering Wind (talk) 00:05, 27 November 2013 (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.

Ariel (Once Upon a Time in Wonderland)

[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 as G7. --BDD (talk) 00:00, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this episode was part of the spin-off series "Once Upon a Time in Wonderland", which is not the case. A separate article has been created: Ariel (Once Upon a Time). Please delete the incorrect version. Another Believer (Talk) 16:28, 25 November 2013 (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.

Dark Hollow (Once Upon a Time in Wonderland)

[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 as G7. --BDD (talk) 23:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this episode was part of the spin-off series "Once Upon a Time in Wonderland", which is not the case. The separate article has been created accordingly (Dark Hollow (Once Upon a Time)). Another Believer (Talk) 16:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Another Believer: you can tag them, and they will have no bearing in these discussions. If you tag them, worse case scenario is that the speedy deletion requests will get denied, and these discussions will continue. If they get speedy deleted, an administrator or another editor will realize that they are deleted, and close these discussions. Steel1943 (talk) 22:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 23:15, 25 November 2013 (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.

Template:WPArticle

[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) 17:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. These are outdated redirects to Template:Lw that had the exact same function as Template:Lw before becoming redirects. Also, these two redirects have no transclusions. Steel1943 (talk) 21:38, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: note that these templates were made into redirects only approximately 15 minutes before the nomination
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 16:20, 25 November 2013 (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.

The Soundtrack

[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 Soundtrack. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 20:21, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect was apparently based on the fact that an early (pre-production) project name for the recording discussed at the target article was "The Soundtrack." However, the album was released in 2011 under the name "The Taking" and only one published source has ever mentioned the pre-production name. This seems a pretty flimsy reason to maintain a redirect from such a generic phrase, especially two years after the project's official release. Dwpaul Talk 19:11, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 07:36, 25 November 2013 (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.

Mexico State.

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 December 3#Mexico State.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2013_November_25&oldid=1138579167"