Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 December 2

Changed redirect accordingly. - RoyBoy 19:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Just because the term is cited doesn't mean it needs a redirect. Article does not prove it's a widely used "appropriate" term. G87 22:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • All you are doing is recycling the old arguments that failed to find favour when the article was discussed. This term is used in New Zealand, UK, US in the past, US in the present, Italy, Ireland, Israel etc Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • last time the voting was 50/50, so its not so hard to find favor, I wonder why it was last time preserved with 50/50 voting.. --Typ932 ^T·C 09:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • And all you are doing is promoting this old joke for your own personal amusement. Just like the pathetic people who wrote those articles you linked. How you can find this redirect so important is beyond me. It's stupid enough being briefely noted in the target. A redirect is simply going too far, so shame on you and everyone else on here who thinks such offensive redirects are appropriate. Like I said before, Wiki is supposed to be an encyclopedia not a joke promoter. G87 00:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The discussion strongly supported keeping (this is not a vote). And even if you think there was no consensus in the last discussion: no consensus defaults to keep. — Kusma ^talk 10:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Bridgeplayer. Appropriately sourced and a useful redirect. Killiondude (talk) 22:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes jokes are very useful. If you think its appropriate then you should create redirect Fix Or Repair Daily for Ford as that is a widely used "Joke" term. G87 22:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It looks like everyone besides you (thus far) has agreed that this is useful. We work by
      consensus around here. Killiondude (talk) 05:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • 50/50 voting does not look like concensus... --Typ932 ^T·C 12:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • 5 people saying keep, 1 saying delete, and 1 "delete" nom ≠ 50/50. I think Google functions as a calculator, if needed. Killiondude (talk) 20:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I was speaking the older "consensus" not this one, and this is hardly "community decision" as only a few people follows these discussions --Typ932 ^T·C 21:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep nothing seems to have changed since the last RfD Josh Parris 22:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and retarget as specified by other users. Wikipedia contains relevant content, and the redirect points to it. I see no issue, especially as redirects are not bound by NPOV. --Taelus (talk) 00:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete strong no need for this, do you have any data that shows this redirect is really needed? how many people used this term to search Fiat? --Typ932 ^T·C 09:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually they may want to find out about the phrase itself, and may not even know its associated with Fiat. - RoyBoy 20:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, mentioned in article. If it's not undue weight to discuss the joke backronym in the article, it is ok to have a redirect for it. — Kusma ^talk 09:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Why? --Typ932 ^T·C 09:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Why not? Redirects are cheap, and we do not delete them just because somebody finds them useless. Somebody else might find a use for them. Anyway, the fact that this is a joke is discussed in the article. Especially if the redirect is changed to point to the section, I don't see the problem. — Kusma ^talk 10:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because its not needed, thats why, we dont add useless redirects to other articles either, even then if some article mentions a thing we dont make redirect to those mentions --Typ932 ^T·C 12:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The community gets to decide what is and isn't useless. Killiondude (talk) 20:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, so you think that it is needed even nobody uses that search term...weird --Typ932 ^T·C 21:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might read up on

logical fallacies. I don't see anybody but you claiming that "nobody uses" the search term. In any case, there's a "stats" link at the top of this discussion which shows that it is used. The last discussion's "numbers" don't play into this one when the outcome is decided. I'm not sure why you're so bent on getting this deleted, when nobody else sees much of an issue with it. Killiondude (talk) 22:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Yep those stats are people from this page, its not used any other, think it about on other angle why you and the others here insist keeping this joke so important when nobody really does not need it?? and what comes to the older voting, it was decided wrongly, it was not consensus --Typ932 ^T·C 22:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, there's a drop down box where you can choose what month's page view stats you're looking at. It is impossible that all the pagehits are from RFD discussions. For the sake of argument, if it is a "joke" it is still a sourced "joke" that makes sense to include in the article. I don't wish to discuss this further, since you seem bound to make pointless comments. Killiondude (talk) 22:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you say it is needed according to those stats?, was the earlier decision a concensus?? Im off this stupid discussion again...you can keep your "concensus" --Typ932 ^T·C 22:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The section has now been reworded appropriately to remove this stupid old Joke. User Typ932 is the only person in this discussion with a sense of normality. Obviously all those above who want to KEEP this inappropriate redirect are biased Americains. I'm sure of that! Hopefully we'll get some input from more sensible folk. G87 20:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I may be biased, but I'm not American. I think the joke is stupid, but that's not a reason not to document it. As I am not American, I don't know how important the joke is for the perception of Fiat in the United States -- if an anti-Italian joke is an important part of it, that needs to be said in the article. It may reflect poorly on the United States, but again: if it's important enough to be said in the article, the phrase can be a redirect. If it isn't important enough for the article, then I don't care. — Kusma ^talk 10:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  After thinking about it some more and considering where

  miserable failure points to, perhaps retarget to Backronym#Jokes_and_pejorative_meanings is better than keeping the current target. — Kusma ^talk 17:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

  ]

Comment - G87 tried to remove the "Fix it again Tony" line completely from the article, most likely in an attempt to end the need for this redirect discussion. Time Magazine and The Guardian (sourced in the target article) both make mention of the phrase "Fix it again Tony", and I've undone the removal. Killiondude (talk) 20:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. By rewording the article I have made it appear relevant and appropriate for users. As a result, there is no need for this silly joke-redirect. Hopefully it will be an end to this nonsense. G87 20:51, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• COMMENT - the relevent redirect would surely be to Backronym#Jokes_and_pejorative_meanings ? where the backronym is currently listed. And no I don't think joke backronyms need redirects. But it's up to you..
  • Note when creating the article AEG I didn't feel the need to make a redirect from "Auspacken, Einschalten, Geht nicht" or "Auspacken, Einschalten, Garantiefall" , nor did anyone at de:wikipedia.. Maybe an article List of backronyms would be a good idea? Shortfatlad (talk) 21:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- it's an ethnic attack. As noted above, we don't have Fix or repair daily, and Found on road dead is not a redir to Ford... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • note - I don't find it that hurtful, as per a mention in the article I wouldn't object in general (not just this case) - such backronyms are often quite well known and worth mentioning. However the redirect is just plain stupid idea..I won't even mention that "jesus killers" redirects to "jew" (JOKE). How about acting all grown up and going for a delete? (but keep mention in article as joke backronym - evidence seems to be that it is sufficiently well known to pass the "I made it up yesterday" test Shortfatlad (talk) 21:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you asking for others to act grown up when you just made a jew = jesus killer joke? I just want to clarify. Killiondude (talk) 21:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry. Though attempting to salvage something from my ill-chosen analogy I would say that the point here is that even though the backcronym can be shown to have been covered in reliable sources that doesn't make it suitable for a redirect. Shortfatlad (talk) 21:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Found on road dead was an improper recreation of a recently deleted redirect and has now been deleted and salted after I tagged it as db-attack. Hans Adler 11:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an obvious attack redirect serving no legitimate purpose. This should normally have been speedily deleted per CSD G10 (see WP:Attack page), but a number of editors have edit warred against the db-attack template. The ethnic component pointed out by SarekOfVulcan makes this even worse than Fix Or Repair Daily, and even that was speedily deleted in May 2006 under CSD A6 (now G10). Hans Adler 21:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have now become aware that two of the editors who removed the db-attack template were actually admins. They did not make it clear in the edit summaries that they were declining the speedy as admins, so I was misled. But in any case according to policy this redirect may be "deleted by any administrator at any time", so an ongoing RfD seems to be an improper argument against the template. Hans Adler 10:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Un likely search term, and as an acronym mis-capitalised anyway. Guy (Help!) 22:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this and other car-related acronyms. If they can be verified and are in common use then they should be documented on WIkipedia. --Biker Biker (talk) 22:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, of course. Redirects are our normal way of "documenting" random tidbits. How silly of me not to think of that. Perhaps we should create Category:Fix it again Tony as well? And a portal of the same name? Hans Adler 23:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, and what's more allow for speedy deletion of all corporate attack redirects and censure editors who continue to create them. Wikipedia is not here for tired old hackneyed stupid unfunny "jokes" of any kind, but especially not for attack redirects. Nobody will plug the phrase into the search engine unless they're really trying to justify their dislike of a corporation. Wikipedia isn't here for that. In fact, I suggest that all such phrases be hard-blocked as found so they can never be recreated. This kind of useless stuff belongs at Urban Dictionary or a car blog, not on an encyclopedia. --NellieBly (talk) 23:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• COMMENT - Just thought I'd note here also that
  Fix it again Tony gets 15,000 Google hits and Fix Or Repair Daily (deleted under "CSD:A6. CSD:A1." in May 2006) gets 40,000 so I say speedy delete of this and any other similar attack. G87 23:31, 05 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - Unlike G87, I don't see this as an attack, or a racial slur or any such on FIAT. Every car manufacture has similar acronyms made up (eg http://www.dunkworld.com/car_acronyms.htm, http://www.carbuyingtips.com/humor.htm). It's just some people's way to let off some steam without hurting anyone. No sane person takes these acronyms seriously, which makes it non-offensive. But still not really worthy of a redirect. Perhaps a small mention in the article somewhere (the article should be unbiased, showing good and bad points instead of just glorious praise).  Stepho  (talk) 01:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No need to keep the redirect, plain search results for 'fix it again tony' are more informational. Unomi (talk) 12:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Legitimate search term. No valid reason for deletion given. --MZMcBride (talk) 14:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you joking? How is "pointless attack" not a valid reason? Do you disagree that WP:Attack page is a valid policy? Hans Adler 15:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And there is no valid reason to keep. Negative and unhumerous jokes are not seen as legitimate search terms. How anyone can justify the use of such terms is beyond my comprehension. G87 16:48, 06 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Just to make everyone aware user Killiondude initiated an ANI on this issue in an obvious attempt to get me blocked. Some valid points have been made there which are worth noting here. G87 17:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak speedy keep: Someone could/would be curious on the etymology of the phrase, or in other words it is a valid search. It being "negative" and "unhumorous" is irrelevant when we are speaking of the pursuit of knowledge. - RoyBoy 19:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another poorly justified statement. Are you saying someone would search this
    Fabbrica Italiana Automobili Torino (Italian Automobile Factory of Turin)? So whenever used, it’s considered a personal insult against Fiat Auto Co. and thus should not be promoted here. It’s very unlikely any person would want to search for such terms anyway. Also, I note the sources, mostly American, use the joke inappropriately. And readers of such can see it’s clearly directed towards FIAT. So there should be no need for them to seek such racist terms “…in the pursuit of knowledge” G87 22:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • How do you personally insult a corporation? :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • When their official acronym is altered and used as a negative joke that borders on racism with the use of the Italian name Antonio (Tony). It's considered degrading and offensive, especially as it was allegedly used by some upset American FIAT owners in the 1970s. G87 22:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I didn't ask how you insult a corporation, I asked how you personally insult something that isn't a person. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ok, well you can change to just personal insult then. G87 17:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, if this is worthy of being mentioned by Time and the Los Angeles Times as popular, it's likely to be a useful redirect. Nyttend (talk) 00:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That usefulness argument only applies to people who enter "Fix it again Tony" into the search field and press Go (or the return key). They are currently sent to
    Fiat Automobiles#Fiat in the United States, while Backronym#Jokes and pejorative meanings is equally relevant. Without a redirect the users would see this: [1]. Note that the two most significant results come first, so it's more useful without the redirect. Hans Adler 09:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Strong Delete Yes, it's common. So is "Fix or Repair Daily". So is "Poor Old N....'s Think It's A Cadillac". So is "Big Money Wasted". I know dozens of common car "acronyms". A redirect for a joke makes no sense in an encyclopedia. (
  BWilkins ←track) 14:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - Attack page with racist overtones. -- Atama頭 20:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, we're off into absurd arguments now. Okay, try this. By deleting this redirect you are directly attacking mechanics called Tony, depriving them of their livelihood and taking food off their table - shame on you. Since Tony is a common name among Italians, you are also being racist - more shame on you. Now this is obviously an absurd argument but it uses the same argument that you are using. I believe the redirect should be deleted because it is a harmless joke, not for supposed attacks. Every car manufacturer gets similar unflattering names. To call them attacks and racism is looking for hate-mongering where there is none.  Stepho  (talk) 00:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "racist overtones" is absurd. "Tony" is the obvious choice in this joke. It does give it a very slight ethnic component, but definitely not what one could call xenophobic. Let alone racist. Hans Adler 00:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• COMMENT I would like to object to user G87 who has been canvassing this issue. Given that G87 was also blocked for edit warring in the FIAT article over this issue, perhaps his/her objections and comments could be struck from this discussion. --Biker Biker (talk) 08:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The alleged canvassing hasn't seemed to bias this discussion (it pulled in proponents of both sides) and he's being quiet at the moment. I'd prefer to leave his comments in.  Stepho  (talk) 09:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its only for getting bigger audience to these inside "concensus" discussions, cant see as canvassing. Without proper notices these discussions would not get enough people to discuss these case. Otherwise you could end make 2 people concensus. --Typ932 ^T·C 11:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think posting to a WikiProject talk page should be seen as canvassing in this case, even if he did express his opinion -- the notice would be as likely to bring in opponents as supporters. Now, if he had posted to WikiProject Italy, that would be another story. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I object to your opinions here. You may see it as canvassing because you vote keep, but as others have noted, I'm simply trying to get a bigger audience as the last discussion had very few people. As for being blocked, that was completely unfair and I'm amazed how some Wiki users get Admin rights. If I could take that further I would but I'm starting to lose faith in the Wiki community. Anyway, back to the issue, the reason I haven't posted in WikiProject Italy is because I know those guys won't be too impressed. G87 17:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Well sourced. Two hits in GNews and over 100 in GBooks including Business Week. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please address the argument for deletion? WP:Attack page doesn't have an exception for well sourced attacks. Fix Or Repair Daily and Found on road dead have similarly good sources and have been deleted anyway. [2] [3] Hans Adler 17:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And Fix Or Reapir Daily is well sourced. That gets over 100 hits in GBooks [4] so you think we should create a redirect for that too? G87 17:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Content specifically excludes redirect pages from content. Thus, redirects pages do not come under the attack policy. The FIAT article mentions the term, explains the reasoning (eg rust) and mentions the improvements made by FIAT, so it is obviously not an attack. So, WP:Attack page doesn't apply in this discussion. I also can't see any racism that G87 keeps mentioning - the negativity in the acronym is aimed at the manufacturer for perceived manufacturing faults, not the country of the manufacturer. I can accept his arguments about it being trivial and non-encyclopaedic but his arguments about attacks and racism are complete rubbish.  Stepho  (talk) 22:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

My response to that would be some may see it as an attack, some don't, you being the latter. Anyway, we both agree that it is not worthy of a redirect. Also, the FIAT article can explain Fiat's weak previous reputation in US without the inclusion of the joke. If you ask me, it's not necessary to include it in the sentance either. G87 22:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reality check: Here is the first sentence from WP:Attack page (my italics): "An attack page is a Wikipedia article, page, template, category, redirect or image that exists primarily to disparage its subject." Hans Adler 22:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know, the redirect most certainly disparages the subject, so it's definately a WP:Attack page. Why can't some people see this? G87 23:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Y'all are misunderstanding
  living person even, but it's not an attack page. Similarly Nigger, Kike, Wop... clearly terms that are attacks, but the pages about them are not attack pages. Same here. --GRuban (talk) 13:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I concur, this problem reminds me of the entire debate over whether Wikipedia should collect "Controversy" and "Critisism of" articles... The term has been used in media, and it thus a likely search term, and at the end of the day will benefit a group of end-users. However, I am unsure I understand the context here, as another editor stated this contained "racist overtones", which I cannot see myself, so perhaps I do not fully understand the context. --Taelus (talk) 14:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks GRuban, this is the first argument against deleting the redirect that makes some sense to me. However, the attack isn't actually notable. It's on the level where we are justified to mention it in another article or two (and we do), but there are no sources that discuss the attack itself. And the redirect is not particularly useful since we can't know whether someone entering the words in the search field is confused and doesn't know which company it refers to, or whether they want to know what this kind of joke is called. Without the redirect the answers to these two questions would be the two first search results. With it, we must make a choice.

And anyway it's silly to create a redirect for every little non-notable fact in an article. Hans Adler 16:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Ok well this discussion does not seem to being going anywhere at the moment. If this ends in keep, you will see the creation of redirects such as Fix Or Reapair Daily etc. I really don't want it to come to that, so I hope its removed G87 16:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - not only is it mentioned in the target article, it's an integral part of Fiat's problems in North America more than a quarter century ago. The reliability problems of the 1970s and 1980s provide a contrast to Fiat's awards over the past dozen or so years. In addition, Fiat's acquisition of control of Chrysler (in 2009) makes this topic even more important. Nom wishes to
  reliable sources), then similar redirects for those backronyms would be appropriate as well. 147.70.242.43 (talk) 18:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Actually I think you'll find that I am NOT trying to
    NPOV. G87 19:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • While paying attention to this discussion, I've gotten the feeling that you might have some sort of
      vested interest in this redirect. Could you comment on that? Apologies if I'm off base. Killiondude (talk) 19:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • I wouldn't say so. I am in no way being biased here. Just because most of my contributions are Fiat-related, you'd assume I'm pro-Fiat, but I'm not. In fact, as I mentioned before, I believe its important to have
        NPOV policy. G87 20:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • Redirects are not included in NPOV policy for names. See Wikipedia:Redirect#Neutrality_of_redirects. Redirects are there to aid navigation by providing plausible search terms. As stated by the redirect policy, non NPOV redirect page titles should simply point to a relevant page which is abiding by NPOV. I still think this redirect is beneficial as citations on the target page show the term has been used by non-Wikipedia groups. --Taelus (talk) 20:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ok so we agree to create redirect for Fix Or Reapir Daily and include citation in Ford? That would be very beneficial wouldn't it? And we should create Categories for them too? G87 20:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The fact remains that in two deletion discussions regarding this redirect (the first closed as a "keep", by the way), there has been a stridency on the part of one or two editors who appear oblivious to the reasons to keep it (this includes an attempt to canvass for RfC !votes, as mentioned above). Not once have the pro-delete people mentioned the relevancy of the problems that Fiat had in the North American market (thus triggering the coverage in
          Talk:Fiat Automobiles) would improve the article... but nom apparently wants the entire section removed instead (note that if the section remains, so must the redirect). 147.70.242.43 (talk) 20:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
          ]
          • Again, I say you haven't been following both discussions carefully. Firstly, there was no User:G89 before, it was me User:G87. Secondly, where have I stated removal of the entire Fiat in the US section?? You clearly appear to have some personal hatred for Fiat which you need to "get over" and be more NPOV. You seem to find it hard to accept that Fiat is very well regarded in Europe. So you feel the need to enhance your hatred towards the company with the use such pathetic jokes?? Your biased views are not helping the discussion. G87 20:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]