Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 June 19

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 close, no longer a redirect. There's a former article in the history, and was PRODed. I'm contesting the PROD, and will hopefully be adding information about his death soon. He appears to be notable to me, but feel free to take to WP:AFD if you disagree. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:11, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Jimmy Wopo → 2018 in hip hop music  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is currently linked from Jimmy Wopo in Deaths in 2018 and the only information it gives is that he is dead. There is no indication of significance or notability, and because the link in Deaths in 2018 is not red, there is less of a chance that a proper article will be written (if one is merited). We'll just be left with a link that provides no information about the subject. ... discospinster _talk 18:29, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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. Although the related deletion was overturned to "no consensus", this discussion has developed a clear consensus to keep. No comment on Atlantic306's page mover right, this is not the forum to discuss such issues. Separate from the close, I will fix the double redirect and restore the history. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:36, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:OTHERCRAPEXISTS → Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This long-standing redirect was recently "deleted" by Atlantic306 using the "page mover" permission that allows non-admins to delete things. Is that allowed per policy - simply being "incivil" or "offensive" is not a CSD criteria unless it rises to the level of an attack page (which this clearly doesn't). Given the shortcut is used in many pages, I think a discussion is best first. My vote is for keep, in case it's not obvious. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) please see [here] where WP:Other crap exists with the same target of other stuff exists was deleted on civility grounds and that RFD surely also applies to this redirect as it is the same except capitalised, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 12:31, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting - I would have closed that discussion as "no consensus", and would have probably voted "keep" on the grounds that suddenly giving rise to thousands of redlinks is probably not a good idea. I personally find "Trump is a great President" far more offensive than "crap", but there you go. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:34, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair. For what it's worth (and this is more aimed at the below), I think it's quite reasonable for the full title and the shortcut to be treated differently. We love our all-caps shortcuts, and I would go so far as to say that we regularly treat such shortcuts differently. Assuming this is closed as keep (something I support and do not find at odds with my above close), I'm fine with heading over to DRV. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:43, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've all been pinged, but DRV link here. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:22, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the consensus at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 May 18#Wikipedia:Other crap exists. The shortcut and the full redirect title should be treated the same. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:04, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now that the decision to delete Wikipedia:Other crap exists has been overturned at DRV. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:02, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Wow, that is a gross abuse of the page mover permission: it clearly does not meet any of the criteria at WP:PMRC and now the history of both redirects is all fucked up. I would even say that is grounds for removal of the permission. WP:PMRR mentions The editor used the permission to gain the upper hand in disputes (using the May 2018 RfD to "delete" a much heavier used redirect) and performing obviously controversial moves without first determining consensus. Seeing that this same redirect has already been kept in an RfD, I would definitely call that a "controversial move". I'm tempted to remove the permission now, but would like a second opinion. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:43, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tavix (talk · contribs) sorry if I messed up but as the redirect was the same except capitalised and going to the same target I didn't realise it wasn't uncontroversial. Will take this as a lesson and be more careful in future, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 18:43, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Either way, the page mover permission should never be used in this manner, even if deletion would be "uncontroversial", as it messes up the edit history. For example, if you think the redirect Wikipedia:Similar articles exist should exist, you create that redirect yourself. Now, it is showing that Xoloz created that redirect, which simply isn't true. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tavix: It is rarely (debatably) appropriate but certainly not in this case. I can elaborate on the matter if you want (just drop a note on my talk page) but right now it's late and I don't want to add anymore clutter to this thread. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 04:04, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, there are exceptions to every rule. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:26, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tavix: If I were an admin, I'd remove the right ... since the editor moved the page without leaving a redirect twice, even after SMcCandlish recreated it; SMcCandlish's edit can now be found at Wikipedia:WP:other article exists. Steel1943 (talk) 22:15, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Steel1943: Now Wikipedia:Other article exists. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 03:50, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic306 has apologised and has said he won't do it again, so I wouldn't support removing the rights at this time. (Hopefully he wasn't planning RfA any time in the next three years, though). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:28, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and fix history purely due to how well used it is. I counted over 3,000 links. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:55, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and fix history per Tavix. I also support removing the right. Thryduulf (talk) 22:54, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and fix history per Tavix. I've used that redirect many times in the past five years. I also support removing page mover from Atlantic306 as they have abused it. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:03, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Unnecessary and uncivil redirect for WP:OSE. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:56, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and fix history. There is no civility issue here, because the "crap" in question is "other random stuff" someone is handwaving at; no individual or group is being maligned. Not that "crap" would be offensive anyway. It's like saying "poopie" and "jerk" and "heck" should be censored. Generally "unclear on the concept", really. See also attempts to MfD WP:Don't be a jerk and RfD WP:JERK. If we tolerate a mild potentially insulting term, we can tolerate an even milder one that doesn't actually insult anyone. Last I looked, inanimate, unspecified content isn't capable of feeling insulted.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:39, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  PS: If, after cleanup, there remains a double-redirect problem, then of course fix it. We actually have a bot to do that anyway.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:33, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  PS: I've sat on this a long time, and have to side with this being abuse of the PM user permission. This wasn't just an error (I've made those, too, like forgetting to turn off "Leave behind a redirect" when doing a round robin); it was misuse of the tool to push a censorious viewpoint.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:24, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  If you think this is is bad, consider Wikipedia:Complete bollocks, complete with picture. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:24, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  A few other relevant bits: We did convert WP:DICK and WP:DIVA into soft redirects to renamed pages (WP:Don't be a jerk, formerly WP:Don't be a dick; and WP:Don't be high-maintenance, formerly WP:Don't feed the divas). The first was done because it was just marginally too vulgar and also gender-specific (WP:CUNT would never be tolerated); the latter because the typical usage was "Quit being a WP:DIVA", against WP:NPA. The point of such pages – as with the one under discussion now – is to describe and advise against non-constructive antics, not label people with them. There is no rule against "a word someone would rather censor". If you tried to take WP:Asshole John rule to WP:MFD, the nomination would fail. Same with WP:Advice for hotheads and WP:HOTHEAD; the content of the piece is tongue-in-cheek and it's explicit about not using it as a label.

• Keep and fix history per above. Too many incoming links and it's really not that offensive. The page mover right has been abused and should be stripped, but this is the wrong venue for that. Smartyllama (talk) 20:30, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, just noticed this is a double redirect and the proper target is Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Retarget There to avoid a double redirect. The rest of my !vote still applies. Smartyllama (talk) 20:34, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget and fix history per Smartyllama. Interqwark ^{talk contribs} 11:10, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and fix history, obviously, per those above. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 03:38, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Only serves to promote battleground mentality without any real upside. Would we also create a WP:CLUSTERFUCK redirect to WP:ANI, or WP:NOTTHISSHITAGAIN redirect to WP:AE? No, I didn't think so.- MrX 🖋 16:47, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We could, and whether it would survive an RfD itself would be a marginal case in my view. I give you User:Ritchie333/Euphemisms. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:55, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a well-loved and much-used tongue-in-cheek redirect. Trout Atlantic306 but keep his page mover privilege. — JFG ^talk 17:37, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Can be used constructively, but we don't have a good system for dealing with the occasions when it's not, so I don't think it's a netpositive to give it the official sanction of a blue link. (As to the other thing: Atlantic306 has acknowledged the error so absent evidence of ignoring that advice, removing the perm would seem to me more punitive than preventative.) Innisfree987 (talk) 21:27, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I originally voted keep and see no difference between this "shortcut" and the original re-direct. Firstly it is as JFG says and certainly not offensive. I have been called worse and not been offended. Anyone offended needs to take a spoonful of cement. Having said that I'm not going to get my knickers in a twist. If one goes, both should go. If one stays both should stay. Hopefully the redlinks can be easily fixed. 8==8 Boneso (talk) 07:21, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Delete as unnecessary redirect, given that we have WP:OSE. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:43, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is itself a WP:OTHERSTUFF rationale - the existence of one redirect to a target does not indicate anything about whether this redirect is useful or not. Thryduulf (talk) 18:17, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch! 👏👏👏 — JFG ^talk 18:38, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Can we get a closure on this? It should have been closed ten days ago. Not really sure why it wasn't. Seems like a pretty clear keep to me, could even be an NAC, but I participated so I can't close it. Smartyllama (talk) 12:53, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've left a request for closure at WP:ANRFC. Thryduulf (talk) 13:12, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.