August 15
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 15, 2015.
Wikipedia:HANG
- 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. --BDD (talk) 18:45, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are better redirects, this redirect is negative (predicting the result we don't want to see) and its usage will always have a chance of serious harm, because it could suggest "Hang yourself" or "You/they are hopeless, but we have to give you/them a chance". And it needlessly offends those who know someone who hanged themselves. Delete. Müdigkeit (talk) 11:03, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The redirect serves no purpose other than to offend when other less offensive redirects are available. ~ RobTalk 11:42, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep: I agree that this is offensive, but it is relevant to its target. I think you should complain about the essay rather than the redirects. Rubbish computer 11:54, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- There is already a discussion about a move on the talk page of that page, and that essay survived a deletion discussion.--Müdigkeit (talk) 12:09, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like it was a clear keep, too. Steel1943 (talk) 13:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Offensive or not, it redirects to the best target I can find, and is thus, helpful ... the purpose of redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 13:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Give 'em enough rope, consensus has been reached that this essay should be kept, so it appears nonconstuctive to delete relevant redirects to it. --Rubbish computer 16:05, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Er, no. Everyone can use less offensive redirects. There is no value over WP:ROPE, and it predicts that the user will indeed hang themselves. WP:GFFENSE.--Müdigkeit (talk) 16:20, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Müdigkeit:: The expression, as the essay's opening quotes, is "Give 'em enough rope, and they'll hang themselves". A distasteful expression, and a distasteful redirect, but one relevant to the essay's name. It is an expression and not to be taken literally. --Rubbish computer 16:37, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Nobody uses it[1] and it really draws attention to the result we don't want. If there were actual history if this link being used I would think otherwise, but really what is the point if it is not being used? Chillum 16:23, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete/retarget As the original and primary author of the essay this redirects to, I can say I never really cared for this shortcut, and there is a consnesus on the essay's talk page to remove it, which has already been done. That being said, i could see it being re-targeted to WP:HANGINTHERE as a simpler, shorter shortcut. Equal preference for either. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:30, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Soft redirect per Ivanvector (but count mine as a keep !vote in terms of consensus if this option doesn't pass). Give 'em enough rope, and they'll hang themselves. Hang is specifically metioned in the saying the essay mentions. "There is a consnesus on the essay's talk page to remove it" to clarify: there is consensus to remove it from the link/shortcut box, not delete the redirect. I perceive the current crusade against this essay of late is happening because some don't care for the tone or don't think it's not politically correct. Wikipedia is not censored; and this is merely an essay, it doesn't hold that much weight; it's merely an opinion of one or more Wikipedia contributors. My keep would be strong, but after reading the opinion of the author, I respect there opinion to a certain dagree on the matter. I still think this is the best target though. I'll play the devil's advocate and point out that retargeting this wouldn't really brake/change many links [2]. This is in the Wikipedia namespace, it doesn't brake any conduct policies. The essay's redirects should be given considerable leeway, especially if they are explicitly mentioned at the target. Hang redirecting to WP:HANGINTHERE, is less appropriate, as it is a slang usage of the word.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 17:46, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Müdigkeit: "And it needlessly offends those who know someone who hanged themselves." If we deleted everything that might possibly offend someone in the Wikipedia namespace, we wouldn't have much left. I would provide an example, but I don't want it to come off like I'm mocking your point or being sarcastic. WP:NOTCENSORED.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 07:02, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete, per Chillum. A bad idea that no one even used. Weak, because bad ideas are best ignored but not suppressed. When removed from explicit mention at the top of the essay, in the linkbox, it will be forgotten by most and undiscovered by anyone not digging into histories.
Oppose retargeting, it has been pointing to something for five years, it is very hard to find every reference, especially non-wikilinked references, and to reuse a shortcut creates the possibility for confusion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:55, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Basically per Chillum. It's barely used, and honeslty, promotes an outcome we don't necessarily want. --גַּבְרִיאֵל (ceradon) (talk) 19:45, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I can't see how this would be used in a non-offensive way. In context, you'd have to say something like "let 'em WP:HANG." I understand it's a metaphor, but I certainly wouldn't want our admins to meteorically suggest someone commit suicide. -- Tavix (talk) 20:07, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Wikipedia:The End#Have patience per Beeblebrox. HANGINTHERE is a neutral target, and as a bonus it's advice we could give users who we might otherwise suggest should HANG themselves, because sometimes Wikipedia is the absolute fucking worst. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:12, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a one sentence section on a very low profile essay, the section itself already having two advertised shortcuts in its linkbox. The proliferation of shortcuts, bright blue bold shouty all caps onewords, is not helpful to conversations, would not help that sentence, and given the confusion risks I strongly oppose this retarget suggestion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:33, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right, any retarget would cause confusion; this shortcut is forever tainted. More below. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:50, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unnecessarily harmful. Oppose retargeting as well; how do you even use that shortcut? "WP:HANG in there", given the history of the redirect, sounds like snark, not honest encouragement. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:35, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and oppose retargeting as seems unnecessary. --Rubbish computer 01:04, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Soft redirect with an explanation about deprecation of the shortcut, per the treatment of WP:STALK and WP:VANITY, so that old conversations are not broken. I can only find a couple of uses of this to refer to the sentiment of the essay (along the lines of "you'll [[WP:HANG|hang yourself]] soon enough") but one such use is in an Arbitration Enforcement thread, and breaking that would be bad. There are several more User: space links from lists of shortcuts and the like, and I don't care about breaking those. For the purposes of consensus, consider this a delete !vote. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:50, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ivanvector: I think this a good suggestion, and I've updated mine above accordingly. Thanks,—Godsy(TALKCONT) 19:08, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The soft redirect makes sense, but on the other hand, if deleted, clicking on it will lead to the deletion log pointing to this discussion, so breaking the (single?) use in a post at Arbitration Enforcement would not be confounding. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:37, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- And leaving the redirect blue means that others still may use this in discussions(nobody looks if the target of links is still the same as before every time), while a red link is usually not used in discussions at all, or leads to research after seeing that it is red(if preview is not used).--Müdigkeit (talk) 07:51, 20 August 2015 (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.
World's most expensive hot dog
- 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 and refine. --BDD (talk) 18:56, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is explained with references in the Hot dog#Records section, but... I don't think this is a proper encyclopedic redirect in the least. I mean I could go grill a hot dog real quick, advertise it for sale for three times the price of the hot dog referenced in that section, and voila, apparently, I just made the world's most expensive hot dog. Better call Guinness World Records. Steel1943 (talk) 04:05, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Also, this redirect was previously an article; the edit history may need to be moved elsewhere if the redirect is deleted. Steel1943 (talk) 04:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and retarget more specifically to Hot dog#Records, which covers this. There appears to be no harm in keeping it. Rubbish computer 11:58, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and
((R to section)). Hotdog -> Hot dog btw. I wonder what the World's least expensive hot dog, World's dearest hot dog, or world's cheapest hot dog would be – I've probably tried them all – and this rather sesquipedalian, but at first, does no harm. Si Trew (talk) 22:15, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and refine target to section as suggested by Rubbish computer. Steel, yes, you could make a hot dog and advertise it for sale for some exorbitant amount, but to be certified by Guinness you'd have to sell one. Or whatever their criteria are. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:14, 16 August 2015 (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.
- 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. --BDD (talk) 18:49, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Most of these redirects may constitute hoaxes & are senseless especially if there is no mention of them in their target article. theenjay36 02:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per nom: implausibility would have to be established for each. Rubbish computer 11:59, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]- Normal delete The idea that 30+ TV stations are actually one TV station stretches believability beyond the breaking point. Having 30 seperate discussions is not desirable. Individual redirects can be easily recreated if there is a demonstrable reason why they are appropriate. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:36, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all per Beeblebrox's point. --Rubbish computer 16:38, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Delete all, although I have no idea what a "normal delete" or for that matter an abnormal delete would be. A few are mentioned at target in the list at section DWAO-TV#UNTV Stations Nationwide: None is marked as
((R to section)) or is in fact a redirect to section, so that's WP:RFD#D2 confusing, and the handful that are blue in that list are redirects to the top of the article, as cryptic and WP:ASTONISHing near-circular references that take a reader's train of thought past its destination then dumps him there, without his baggage. Si Trew (talk) 01:07, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It was an attempt at a cheap joke based on the original "weak delete" comment that Rubbish Computer has now stricken out. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:22, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep One And Delete The Rest - DWAJ-TV → DWAO-TV is an extremely plausible typo to make given that all it takes is one stray finger (given how close the keys are in the usual 'QWERTY' keyboard, you wouldn't need to stray far) for one moment. That should be kept. The rest ought to go. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:53, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I think keeping DWAJ-TV as a typo or misspelling is not a good idea. That might mislead the readers who, in turn, might think the station makes changes to its call sign throughout its history although there's no mention of such thing in the target article. theenjay36 10:08, 16 August 2015 (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.
"Definition" redirects
- 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 but the two old-style CamelCase ones (keep on those). --BDD (talk) 18:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTDIC. Steel1943 (talk) 01:52, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Of course Wikipedia articles contain a definition of their topic. Having generic redirects like these for only some topics is confusing and harmful. Having redirects for every such article would be a maintenance nightmare. Therefore, we should have none, except perhaps for articles which are about some definition rather than a concrete topic. Even those are potentially confusing, however. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 02:24, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:NOTDIC Wikipedia is not a dictionary -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:38, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOTDIC. Rubbish computer 12:00, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all per all the above. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:31, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all, as above. WP:SNOWBALL. As Steel1943 says, we would have to have "definition of" almost every entry in Wikipedia, which paradoxically would be a definition of indefinition. As a reductio ad absurdem, we don't have Definition of definition nor Definition of Definition nor Definition of Definite. WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. Si Trew (talk) 22:28, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Si Trew, it was actually the anon who said that, though I really wholeheartedly agree with their point as well. Steel1943 (talk) 23:54, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry to both User:Steel1943 and User:209.211.131.181 for my misattribution. I had looked through the several starting with "definition of listed here"by Steel1943 and mistakenly thought that was an opening remark. I am glad my mistake was taken in good faith. Si Trew (talk) 00:04, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ivanvector: From what I understand about the CamelCase redirects, they only serve a useful purpose if their target article either has or had a title that matches the CamelCase title, but with spaces. It doesn't seem like either one of their target articles were ever named as such. Steel1943 (talk) 03:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, this is odd, given that I don't understand what Conversion script's purpose was back in 2001. Worse case scenario, the histories of those two pages may need to be moved elsewhere, especially since it looks like that bot was performing cut-and-paste moves. Steel1943 (talk) 03:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact, let's see what happens with these: 1 & 2. Steel1943 (talk) 03:38, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Steel1943: My understanding with these (in particular) is that they were part of LarrysText (Larry Sanger's original contributions to the early Wikipedia) which are kept because they have historical significance to the project, less because the revision history is essential to preserve. In fact, as explained on Conversion script's user page, the pages that were converted from UseModWiki to phase II in 2002 had only their most recent revision imported, so any past history is lost anyway, although some have been manually imported from Nostalgia Wikipedia (e.g. Wikipedia:UuU). So, I think, it's necessary to preserve the CamelCase names for attribution, because the only attribution is via Conversion script to the old database. Sanger's text was from his university lectures and likely would be deleted if it were contributed to today's Wikipedia, they're not exactly encyclopedic. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:34, 17 August 2015 (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.
Definition list
- 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. --BDD (talk) 18:30, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is really no way to cure this redirect's ambiguity. Steel1943 (talk) 01:50, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep this one. I added a navigational note to HTML element#Lists that points to Glossary; that salvages the ambiguity as much as possible. The content this is pointing to really is called a "definition list" element, though the name is now supposed to be historical. There has to be some way to find it. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 02:18, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- keep for the <DL> tags; if there are other topics, we can disambiguate it - 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as modified by the anon. DGG ( talk ) 06:22, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep
and retarget more specifically to HTML element#Lists. Rubbish computer 12:03, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Rubbish computer: It already is directed at
[[HTML element#Lists]]. BTW, hope to meet you in Oxford tomorrow. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:32, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Redrose64: Thank you. I will be attending and look forward to meeting you, too. Rubbish computer 12:36, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There has been much confusion over the years as to what the Wiki markup
; and : (when used at the start of lines) actually do (they create a <dl>...</dl> enclosing <dt>...</dt> and <dd>...</dd> elements), with some people asserting that this isn't a list so is not subject to the accessibility rules like WP:LISTGAP. If we say "it's a definition list" they might say "no, it's an association list which is not the same thing", and vice versa. The problem is that W3C (and, I think, WHATWG) have changed their minds over terminology at least twice (at least three names have been used: definition list; description list; and association list), and this has led to edit-warring and heated debate such as that at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Archive 12#including talk page discussions or Talk:HTML element#The DL element (other threads too), so we do need this redirect to take people straight to the most applicable place, which is HTML element#Lists. If they want references, we can perhaps add links to current and historic W3C standards. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:32, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, as my sentiment at #"Definition" redirects, above. Any formal language er, by definition, defines terms, but that don't make those definitions notable. HTML is rather defined ad hoc and de facto instead of de jure, anyway. Were it to target Document type definition, XML or XHTML I could see a clearer case for a kee: those being far more formally defined. Si Trew (talk) 22:35, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- A "definition list" is a particular kind of list entity found in HTML, it is not the 'definition' of 'list'; Indeed in HTML, there is no single 'list' type entity. a "definition list" is distinct from an "ordered list" and an "unordered list", two other types of HTML entities that generate lists when coded in HTML. To generate "ordered lists" you would use the <OL> tag set , while for "unordered lists" you would use the <UL> tag set ; both unordered nad ordered lists use the <LI> list item tag for list entries, while the "definition lists" do not, instead relying on the pair of <DT> to establish the term and <DD> to define the definition. XHTML was officially defined, as has HTML5; and the original CERN Tim Berners-Lee HTML has the original formulation, which also had these three list entities. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:18, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @SimonTrew: I agree with 67.70.32.190. Considering your three suggestions, none of them would be a suitable alternative destination for this redirect. Document type definition and XML each mention lists several times, but none of them describe what a definition list actually is. XHTML mentions definition lists exactly once, at XHTML#XHTML 2.0 in the phrase "a wide variety of means like nested unordered lists or nested definition lists" - but that is in the context of describing the
<nl>...</nl> element, which would have been part of XHTML 2.0. There is an excellent example of a definition list at Document type definition#Attribute list declarations immediately after the text "Here are some attribute types supported by both SGML and XML:", although that list is not described in the text as a definition list - and doesn't need to be, since the definition list is here being used in its intended semantic manner (the apparent definition list at XML#Key terminology is not a good example, because it suffers from WP:LISTGAP - instead of one list that defines seven terms, it's seven lists each defining one term). --Redrose64 (talk) 07:42, 16 August 2015 (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.
Amerykanie pochodzenia polskiego
- 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. --BDD (talk) 18:27, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A phrase in foreign language. Implausible redirect. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is written in Polish ("Americans of Polish descent" per gTranslate), so would therefore have a strong affinity for the topic of "Polish Americans" -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:41, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per 67 as this foreign language is relevant to the subject. Rubbish computer 12:01, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I find it unlikely and a bit silly, but it does no harm and if it helps even one person ever find the content they were looking for it's a good thing. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:33, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. WP:FORRED, WP:NOTDIC. pl:Amerykanie pochodzenia polskiego is (in essense) red, so if it is not at PL:WP I can't see why it should be at EN:WP. Si Trew (talk) 22:09, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the latter part of Beeblebrox's rationale: "it does no harm and if it helps even one person ever find the content they were looking for it's a good thing.". Thryduulf (talk) 11:38, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - plausible search term (and indeed, plausible redirect since it exists). Directs readers to the subject they're looking for. WilyD 15:22, 17 August 2015 (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.