Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 November 19

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

November 19

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 19, 2010

User:Camper-mann

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. Alexf(talk) 00:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This was redirect was probably unintentionally created, as the user moved a draft into the mainspace. AFAIK, user pages shouldn't redirect to articles. SmartSE (talk) 18:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or blank the page. I agree with Smartse on both accounts: likely an unintentional side effect, but not an appropriate redirect. 28bytes (talk) 20:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Category Lakes of Polk County, Florida

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. Alexf(talk) 00:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Apparently created in error. If not an error, not a good idea to create redirects to categories Mhockey (talk) 15:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedia:FAKEARTICLE

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 Keep. Ruslik_Zero 19:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This shortcut is to the User page guideline Pages that look like articles, copy pages, project pages. While that guideline has a lot of "is not", "should not", and "is also not" language, it also supports keeping certain content in user space via "Short term hosting of potentially valid articles and other reasonable content under development or in active use is usually acceptable." The term "fake" carries with it a strong negative connotation as in counterfeit, forged, fraudulent, phony, and sham. When the shortcut FAKEARTICLE is used in a deletion discussion, it wrongfully implies that the content up for deletion either is a work that is deliberately made or altered to appear better, older, or other than what it is or that it is a fraudulent imitation of another work that already exists, did exist, or no longer exists. However, the lookalike content guideline for user pages does not say that. The above noted user page guideline also covers more content than just articles, so FAKEARTICLE has additional problems. The shortcut

Wikipedia:UP#COPIES already provides a shortcut to the user page guideline. In view of all this, I propose that Wikipedia:FAKEARTICLE be deleted or otherwise disabled so that it is no longer used as a shortcut. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

  • On review, you might be right in that the section probably is taking on too many different guidelines and is operating as a catchall. "Keep - per FAKEARTICLE" isn't something I think anyone would use, which is a reason I don't think it makes for a good shortcut. I still think the shortcut should have less of a contentious tone to make it less likely that it is misused. LOOKALIKECONTENT might work. Your new STALEDRAFT optional shortcut is a more neutral sounding shortcut as well. Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 16:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have created
    WP:STALEDRAFT to cover the third case in my list above where I think the inappropriate use of FAKEARTICLE was primarily happening. Please encourage people to use that instead where it's appropriate. Gigs (talk) 15:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep widely used, if that usage is incorrect, it should be be corrected.--NYKevin @952, i.e. 21:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. To be sure, people often toss a
    WP:FAKEARTICLE reference into a deletion discussion about a page that is quite obviously not a fake article, but that's not sufficient reason to delete the shortcut. 28bytes (talk) 23:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep' Why not?
    attack) 03:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep' as I don't feel like fixing the 689 places where this is used. I like the addition of WP:STALEDRAFT and would support removing WP:FAKEARTICLE from the list of recommended shortcuts for the section that WP:FAKEARTICLE redirects to. --Marc Kupper|talk 11:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I understand what the nominator means, and perhaps it would have been better had this short cut not been created. However, it has now existed for a long time, and the possible negative connotations are not strong enough reason to justify the considerable inconvenience that would be caused by orphaning the 689 links to it. Besides, a page which is like an article but is kept indefinitely in user space can reasonably be referred to as a "fake article", whether or not the intention was fraudulent.
    talk) 14:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep - too many old uses of it which shouldn't be broken. However I do see the point, and we could try and deprecate the use (remove the shortcut from the destination), and use eg WP:SHADOWARTICLE instead. Rd232 talk 22:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That could be confusing. A shadow government in the UK is a minority party waiting to take power if they win a majority. That could imply that a shadowarticle is one that's waiting to get notability to make it in main space. I really think FAKEARTICLE is an accurate description for the narrow case I meant it for originally, when someone has a userspace page that looks like an article but isn't actually intended to be in the mainspace in the foreseeable future, but we really need to start prodding people to use it correctly. Gigs (talk) 04:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Huh. Well my first thought was WP:MIRRORARTICLE, but then I thought SHADOWARTICLE had a nice double meaning of either an article hiding in the shadows (FAKEARTICLE sense) or a shadow of an article (STALEDRAFT sense). Your UK politics meaning is not a great problem I think (I'm British and a Radio 4 listener and it didn't occur to me...), certainly less than the current FAKE issue. Rd232 talk 16:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

William R.G. Baker

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 Deleted by Skier Dude as G7 (author request). -- JLaTondre (talk) 19:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

$ony

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 no consensus, with the exception of MICROS~1, for which the result is delete per Uncle G's argument based on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 December 1. Some say delete, some say retarget, some say keep, and as Uncle G rightfully pointed out, the mass nomination is a bad idea. Each redirect may be renominated individually immediately at editorial discretion. T. Canens (talk) 16:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopedic, implausible typos or misnomer, with probably a little POV inserted into what makes these objects more satirical misspellings than other misspellings; I don't know who would search for such terms. Why waste time creating every single redirect for every page on Wikipedia replacing every single 's' with a dollar sign, or use it to create redirects in

NaSpVe :| 10:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

  • I don't have an inherent problem with these. I'm not sure that we could explain something like "MICROS~1" in Microsoft, without people claiming it was irrelevant trivia. Some of these seem pretty uncommon and unlikely, but some of the more common and interesting ones should be retained. Gigs (talk) 16:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all except Windoze and Phuck: Those two could be a legitimate misspelling from a non-native speaker, and their stats show a fair amount of traffic. As for the rest, I agree with the nominator: implausible search terms with no significant traffic and in many cases POV concerns. And Windoze and Phuck should probably be redirected to Windows and Fuck, respectively, since those are in all likelihood what the searcher is looking for. 28bytes (talk) 22:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - POV is not a ground for deletion of a redirect. See also
    WP:RNEUTRAL. Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

User:Pkukiss

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 procedural keep and individually relisted at
NaSpVe :| 06:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Implausible redirects or typos, some cross-namespace, some appear to be POV, some as the result of pagemove vandalism.

NaSpVe :| 10:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Bushit

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. Ruslik_Zero 19:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible typo,

NaSpVe :| 10:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

P:BEP

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 all except
P:BEP. Ruslik_Zero 19:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Cross-namespace redirects with little in transclusions or page view statistics.

NaSpVe :| 23:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2010_November_19&oldid=1066419126"