Talk:Special snowflake

This redirect was nominated at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion on 2016 December 23. The result of the discussion was retarget to Generation Snowflake.

This article was nominated for deletion on 14 April 2016. The result of the discussion was soft redirect.

Deletion discussion

I support deletion. I do not see why this page is necessary and seems to only be used to attack people. Name calling is not for Wikipedia. HarryKernow (talk) 19:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of this page, I support keeping this page. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not puritan prose. Much worse slurs than this are covered on wikipedia. If things need to be improved on this page, do so or leave a request specifying what to improve. Virtual book burning is not the solution. Wikipedia pages are not created for necessity, but for usefulness. Explaining a phrase used in the press, in the media and on social media is useful. No people are named in the article (bar authors), so no people are attacked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rational Absurdity (talk • contribs) 20:34, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Take this to the AFD, you two. That's where this discussion belongs. Smartyllama (talk) 18:07, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing to Generation Snowflake

Seems that these terms apply to the same concept. I've added a redirect. Please watch this page for vandalism and WP:Edit warring. If someone thinks this redirect is inappropriate, please make your case here. I am trying to improve the usefulness and quality of Wikipedia. MHP Huck (talk) 04:22, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're both guilty of edit warring but the redirect seems perfectly reasonable to me. The terms are clearly related. MaxBrowne (talk) 04:39, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. Tit for tat. I would much rather not have to revert back an edit I made which was reverted. MHP Huck (talk) 04:42, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The situation as it stands now is that if anyone decides to report you to WP:ANEW you'll both almost certainly get a block. Clear 3RR violation by both. MaxBrowne (talk) 04:53, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MHP Huck has made 4 reverts while I have made 3. MHP, please self revert so as not to be in violation of 3RR. --DynaGirl (talk) 05:00, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you count, we both made three reverts on this page. Also, I most certainly didn't start it, if that matters to anyone. MHP Huck (talk) 05:03, 19 December 2016 (UTC) I'd add that now that I know the rule, I intend to avoid doing three reverts although it certainly is frustrating when things are repeated reverted, even when the add value to the community. MHP Huck (talk) 05:06, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure your first redirect counts as a revert. Then you redirected 3 more times, while I was asking you to please stop, so this direct link could be accessed on talk:Generation Snowflake, as part of a current discussion. --DynaGirl (talk) 05:11, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My first edit was an edit which added value to Wikipedia. Not sure how an edit could count as a "reversion." MHP Huck (talk) 05:15, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it counts as a revert. It undid this term linking a page with the Wiktionary link, which was the result of the AfD. And why did you redirect 3 more times once you realized, this page was wikilinked as part of a current ongoing discussion and you were asked to please stop redirecting? --DynaGirl (talk) 05:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't revert anything. I didn't revert the Wiktionary link and only saw the link after I added the redirect. I didn't know what the '{Wi|special snowflake syndrome}' even was until I investigated later. I only saw the discussion about giving this a soft redirect after I made the edit. If you look at my actions in light of previous debates on the soft redirect page you will agree I made the right decision. I most certainly didn't view myself as making a substantial change at all nor did I think I was reverting the page. I added value. You just want to win a silly argument on another page and decided to battle over this little issue due to escalating commitment. MHP Huck (talk) 05:39, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about winning, this is about improving Wikipedia. It looks as if a page on this topic could be recreated, as the AfD left that possibility open. There is an active discussion regarding recreating the Special Snowflake page on talk:Generation Snowflake, but now the link to this page to review edit history no longer works, due to your redirect--DynaGirl (talk) 07:26, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not redirect while the link to this page is part of an active discussion on talk:Generation Snowflake. The page was linked over there so editors could review edit history over here (they can't do that if it redirects) If I understand the AfD currently, it appears a special snowflake article can be recreated here, because it wasn't deleted, it was blanked, apparently because it was poorly written. --DynaGirl (talk) 04:58, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DynaGirl, you are thinking that I added the redirect due to your link, but I added the redirect and then saw that your provided a link on the talk page. Different order of events. MHP Huck (talk) 05:00, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But now that you know there is a link on talk:Generation Snowflake that requires editors to be able to access this page directly, could you please self-revert? --DynaGirl (talk) 05:04, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't hard to access a page with a redirect. MHP Huck (talk) 05:05, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All you need to do is click on the "redirected from" link on the page that it redirects to, and you can look at the page's history from there too. There is nothing disruptive about the redirect, only the edit warring. MaxBrowne (talk) 05:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a current discussion on talk:Generation Snowflake which includes a wikilink to this page so other editors can access edit history over here. That link now doesn't work due to the redirect. --DynaGirl (talk) 05:14, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Click on redirected from. Easy. We don't undo valid main space edits just for the convenience of talk page participants. Wikipedia exists for the benefit of the readers, not the editors. MaxBrowne (talk) 05:18, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's disruptive for the editors and there's no consensus for the redirect. The result of the AfD was soft redirect to the Wiktionary page, which showed up if the term was searched, prior to what appears to be 4 reverts by MHP Huck --DynaGirl (talk) 05:25, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My edit summary was cut short, finishing it here: ... Furthermore, it isn't proper for a page to have both a soft redirect and hard redirect like that.— Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 08:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I started a discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 December 23#Special snowflake.— Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 09:25, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am fine with a soft redirect, I actually didn't understand the difference. The use of the term "special snowflake" and the reference to "generation snowflake" are nearly identical, although one has an ageist angle. My subjective understanding of how people use these terms would suggest that special snowflake might be a better option as the primary page, as opposed to Generation Snowflake given that the latter is more specific, but the differences of meaning are quite small. MHP Huck (talk) 18:01, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Snowflake (slang)

Snowflake (slang) has been created following the RfD and it seems a better target for this redirect. That new article contains a more detailed discussion of "special snowflake" so I swithced the redirect there. --DynaGirl (talk) 01:27, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]