Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 May 17

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

May 17

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 17, 2012

Wikipedia:POLICYPRICK

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
Dreadstar ☥ 03:25, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

I'm sure it was in the best intentions, but I think the name POLICYPRICK is unnecessarily inflammatory and isn't likely an oft used terms. To allow users to easily link it this way seem unnecessarily combative and incivil. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:26, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A valid point, however I would predict it being abused (i.e. calling people a policy prick) more than it being used in self-deprecation humour. If you wanted to refer to yourself as a policy prick I would recommend using a pipelink such as [[WP:WIKILAYWER|WP:POLICYPRICK]], or intentionally redlinking the redirect, which sometimes can have more of an effect than the redirect. --kelapstick(bainuu) 00:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. I don't really have a problem with this being deleted, I just thought it was fun (; It does have high potential for abuse. Be——Critical 00:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I hated to bring it here but had to B, it isn't personal. I'm still a little leary of your other one as well, but mulling it over. I appreciate your open minded attitude about the concerns here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:35, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about it, no hard feelings at all. Maybe I shouldn't have made it to begin with (; Be——Critical 02:16, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I see the
    WP:DICK argument, but I think there's a difference here. This goes beyond the umbrella assertion DICK represents, which is using common sense to determine what policy would prescribe in any given situation, and if you don't, you're a DICK. This redirect calls anyone who engages in a particular practice a PRICK. The special treatment of lawyering is unwarranted and I think counterproductive, especially if it spawns other similar redirects to other policies. It should go. Equazcion (talk) 00:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per nom, creator is okay with deletion as well.--Lenticel (talk) 01:19, 18 May 2012 (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.

Blindu eusebiu

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 defer to AfD. If the target is deleted (as presently seems likely), then this redirect can be deleted per
WP:CSD#G8. If the article is kept, then the redirect can be renominated without prejudice if desired. Thryduulf (talk) 19:10, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Improbable redirect to an article currently at AfD, created by SPA User:Stopdeletingarticles, ... bobrayner (talk) 15:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Suggest deferral for now. The AFD is going strongly delete, and if the target goes, this can then me be simply G8 CSDed. The AFD is likely to be completed well before this RFD would be completed anyway. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:22, 17 May 2012 (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.

Graham Pierce

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. — ξxplicit 23:08, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. non notable person 2. redir creates need for superfluous hatnote 3. autobio redir Widefox (talk) 08:58, 17 May 2012 (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.

Super Tafe

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 both. — ξxplicit 23:08, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A double nomination. The term appears to be a derogatory characterization of particular universities in Australia — that they are only 'super

TAFE' institutions. The pages have vacillated between various universities, and there are no mainspace interlinks; I cannot imagine any way to keep them. In my view, borderline CSD, but I thought I'd offer them here. NTox · talk 05:27, 17 May 2012 (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.

Vegetarian sausage

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. Rossami (talk) 22:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am rather concerned that if one types "Vegetarian sausage" into the box on the left, one gets redirected to "Vegetarian hot dog". I thought I had better take this to "Wikipedia: Redirects for discussion" because a sausage is not the same as a hot dog - a sausage is just a sausage, whereas a hot dog is a sausage inside a bread roll. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 08:16, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note formatting fixed by Thryduulf (talk) 13:34, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Sausage#Vegetarian sausage and tag with {{R with possibilities}} and {{R to section}}. This is, predictably, a very well used redirect and so readers should be directed to where we have content, although the current target does contain relevant material that could be merged (I'll add a see-also link to the section at Sausage. Thryduulf (talk) 13:41, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Sausage#Vegetarian sausage per Thryduulf .--Lenticel (talk) 01:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'I agree with the last suggestion. Vegetarian sausage still redirects to "Vegetarian hot dog" - I am not happy about that, but I shall be a lot happier if the last suggestion is adopted. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 10:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is usual for the redirect to remain unchanged until the discussion is closed, which is normally at least 7 days after it was nominated. Thryduulf (talk) 19:20, 22 May 2012 (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.

Exobrain

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 Externalism, as the most appropriate target at this time. — ξxplicit 23:08, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

deletion, no attempt has been made to establish what Exobrain is, or how it connects with the article to which it redirects. This redirect does not appear to be helpful in any way. Argey (talk) 04:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Interesting. According to Google, "exobrain" is 1) some sort of pre-released information management tool, 2) an apparently minor company and 3) a neologism for the idea that your "mind" is no longer limited to the knowledge currently in your head but can be thought of as expanded by those real-time information assets at your disposal [1], [2], [3], [4] and [5]. The current target is a book about that third idea. The book does not appear to use the neologism (and our article certainly doesn't but it is definitely talking about the same concept. It is related to memex and externalism and to a lesser degree to situated cognition.
    The redirect to the book is clearly less than ideal. I could see a case for expanding the redirect into its own article. I could also see a case for retargetting - "externalism" seems the least bad choice so far but maybe there's a better target. I do not see a justification to delete the redirect from history, however. Rossami (talk) 16:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rossami is quite correct. While it would be nice to have a full article on the exobrain concept as distinguished from a memex and whatever, we obviously do not have one, and until we do, a redirect to the closest article is the best approach. --Gwern (contribs) 18:55 17 May 2012 (GMT)
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2012_May_17&oldid=1142587528"