Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 July 20

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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:59, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• File:RSA Logo.jpg → File:Royal Signals Association (logo).jpg (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Re-titled image Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't done much with files, but wouldn't this meet criteria F1? "Unused duplicates or lower-quality/resolution copies of another Wikipedia file having the same file format". Now that it has been redirected, this is an unused duplicate. Nothing relevant redirects there. In any case, if there is a practice of redirecting files, it would be impossible to decide whether to redirect this to File:Royal Signals Association (logo).jpg or File:Research Studios Austria (logo).jpg Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• While this page is in the file namespace, it is technically not a file, just a redirect. That being said, I'm in favour of deletion: as Ryan has pointed out, RSA is ambiguous. Disambiguation is unnecessary for files because they are not searched for in the same manner as articles. Were I in the nominator's shoes, I may have tried to tag it for G6 speedy deletion with a short explanation of the situation, but now that we're here we may as well let RfD run its course. BigNate37_(T) 08:37, 21 July 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.

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The result of the discussion was withdrawn. --BDD (talk) 05:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Fabrice Bardeche → IONIS Education Group (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Deletion. Spam establishing blue link on non notable person. — Racconish^Tk 21:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep He is the vice-president of the page he is redirected to, can it get any more plausible than that? Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  It remains to be established why being the VP of a school makes a person notable. Assuming the existence of specific sources on the person, this would justify an article, not a redirect.— Racconish^Tk 21:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  A person does not need to be notable to have a redirect. Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • • Redirects are frequently used to take people searching for non or semi-notable people and topics to broader articles that cover them. The corollary of WP:RED (That redlinks encourage article creation) is that redirects can discourage the creation of articles we don't want. I don't know whether this person is notable enough for an article, but while he doesn't have one this is best target and no valid reasons to delete have been given, so keep. Thryduulf (talk) 01:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Considering your arguments, I agree with you. Nomination withdrawn.— Racconish^Tk 05:35, 21 July 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.

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. JohnCD (talk) 17:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Denver Batman massacre → 2012 Aurora shooting (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Nonsensical redirect whose language implies that Batman killed the people in the 2012 Aurora shooting. Herp Derp (talk) 17:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Or that Batman was killed in a Denver massacre...  Sandstein  17:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Batman was not killed nor did he do the killing. United States Man (talk) 17:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• keep the event is being refered to it this way in the media, and people may search for it this way. Should not be referenced in the article, but a redirect is fine. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See google results for this WP:COMMONNAME https://www.google.com/search?name=f&hl=en&q=%22batman+massacre%22 Gaijin42 (talk) 18:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can't cite a google source. United States Man (talk) 18:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The google search is a convinient link to several hundred citable sources! Thanks for playing! Gaijin42 (talk) 19:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - silly and inaccurate, but plausible as a search term, for use by someone who remembers the vague details of the event but not precisely where it occurred. Robofish (talk) 18:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Stupid name or not, it's a plausible search string. -208.81.148.195 (talk) 19:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Its wide use makes it a plausible search term. You don't have to like it. --BDD (talk) 19:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per robofish, I confess the first thing I typed into the search box this morning was 'batman shooting' when looking for this article. Doesn't have to be referenced in the text. Also I don't agree that it necessarily implies that Batman was killed or did the killing, cf. the Czechoslovak Hockey Riots were not perpetrated by or directed at hockey players. I have more of a problem with the word 'massacre' which is being used in a hyperbolic manner, but if that's what tabloids are calling it we should have a redirect. - filelakeshoe 21:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Robofish. Plausible redirect. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Not only is this a plausible search term, this is verbatim the search term I used to find the corresponding article on Wikipedia. Rationale for deletion seems silly at best, redirects are WP:CHEAP and this one does precisely what it's supposed to. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 22:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• speedy keep per WP:SNOW. This is the name many media organisations are giving the event, including the BBC [1] so it is an extremely likely search term. Indeed there is an argument that it deserves a mention on the article (in the context of noting it as a common news headline). Further at least one report mentions him dressing up as the Joker it is not outside the bounds of possibility that there is some link to Batman in terms of motive. Thryduulf (talk) 01:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The event did not occur in Denver. — O'Dea (talk) 02:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nor was the Waco siege in Waco. Readers aren't expected to be experts on geography to find the article. —C.Fred (talk) 03:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment' This redirect has been hit 528 times in it's first 12 hours. I think that speaks for it's usefulness as a redirect. Ryan Vesey Review me! 03:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. The only criterion at WP:R#DELETE that might apply is #5, "The redirect makes no sense." However, it's clear that since readers are hitting the link and media organizations are using the term that the link does make sense. It's a plausible alternative name, and this is a perfectly acceptable use of a redirect. —C.Fred (talk) 03:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep, the term may be inaccurate or ambiguous, but it's a valid search term that makes sense. Users who aren't able to decipher the meaning of the phrase will be properly informed upon arriving at the article, which is the entire point of the redirect. This RfD nomination is disrupting searches for this major current event. BigNate37_(T) 08:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep No reason to delete it. Any inaccuracies that it applies will surely be clarified once they get to the real article. JDDJS (talk) 14:23, 21 July 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.

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 Speedy Delete, G8 by User:Kusma. Lenticel ^(talk) 00:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• E3 222 → Need for Speed: Hot Pursuit (series) (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

This is ridiculous. What does "E3 222" has to do with Need for Speed?? MrStalker ^(talk) 07:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I agree, that really makes no sense. United States Man (talk) 18:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, could find 'E3' mentioned in a few of the refs but without any apparent context. - filelakeshoe 21:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as Blatant vandalism. The page was moved to E3 222 with the edit summary "i created this page now i want to delete this so whats the problem". It was then moved back. I think we should examine some other redirects by the creator. Is Nfsmws a plausible redirect for Need for Speed: Most Wanted (series)? Other redirects include Shift2u, Pis,b, and Kkhh. Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the best course is to assume good faith at this point. Pis,b makes some sense, as I've explained at its RfD discussion, and Shift2u makes even more sense. BigNate37_(T) 08:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• delete. Such a comment could indicate a malformed G7 request, but given the circumstances here I don't think that's likely. I'm not 100% certain this was vandalism, but wouldn't stand in the way of a speedy if others are more confident than me. Thryduulf (talk) 01:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• As User:Crisco 1492 hinted in his edit summary directed at the nominator, E3 was the convention where one of the NFS titles was showcased. However, I do not understand the significance of 222. I have left Crisco a note on his talk page asking him to explain further. BigNate37_(T) 08:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• My apologies, looks like a poor keep (I had assumed that was the E3 number, or otherwise related related, but upon looking further I can't verify that). Should speedy deletion be requested I will be happy to do that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:34, 21 July 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.

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. JohnCD (talk) 17:31, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Sue Pyo → Jang Yeong-sil (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

deletion:The redirect makes no sense, such as redirecting Apple to Orange — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wog65 (talk • contribs) 03:22, 20 July 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No mention of Sue Pyo in the Jang Yeong-sil article, and no Google results to suggest it's a useful redirect. I declined to speedy delete this redirect under CSD R3 because it's been around since 2006, so if there's a reason for the redirect to exist, there's to to find it out. —C.Fred (talk) 03:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  "supyo", a kind of water gauge, is mentioned in the article, perhaps that's what it means. Siuenti (talk) 14:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, it seems that "supyo" just means "water gauge" in Korean, so it's a bit like redirecting the German word for "printing press" to Johannes Gutenberg. Also delete Soo Pyo if this reasoning is correct. Siuenti (talk) 16:03, 22 July 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.

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 Speedy deleted by author's request. Peridon (talk) 11:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a bit insulting, which may be the point, but that would make it incivil, thus out of policy. Superfluous anyway, as we don't need every possible redirect, only the most logical and/or useful. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• To be clear, it means Considered incapable of being educated, esp. (formerly) as a result of a mental handicap. Probably eligible for speedy delete as being grossly offensive, actually. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. "Ineducable" is also very commonly used to describe those who are unwilling to be educated, and WP:INEDUCABLE has a subtly different meaning from other somewhat insulting links to the same section such as WP:IGNORINGADVICE and WP:IWONTLISTEN. The difference is "resistance to advice" vs. "resistance to attempts to educate." This makes it useful in certain situations. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)^{See changed vote below}[reply]

  WP:WAX so the others are meaningless. Any redirect that can be construed as the end party having a "mental handicap" is clearly over the line. It doesn't matter how else it *might* be construed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I agree with Dennis Brown, we have plenty of redirects to this section already, and this one seems a bit insulting. Besides which, if someone is genuinely unable to understand that their behaviour is wrong (and not just trolling), the proper place to link to should be WP:Competence is required. Robofish (talk) 18:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. There are plenty of less insulting ways to get the point across. --BDD (talk) 23:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• comment. If kept, this should be retargetted to Wikipedia:Competence is required, as that's where I expected it to go when I saw the section title here. I'm not certain either way whether there is benfit in keeping it as a redirect at all though. Thryduulf (talk) 01:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Was created 12 July 2012, has no incoming links. Were there a history behind this redirect I'd weigh it more carefully, but since this is a new thing, I'm comfortable calling it over the line. BigNate37_(T) 08:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Wikipedia:Competence is required -- looks like this is heading for deletion, but if kept this is better than my choice when I created it. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:07, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Related Redirect: I just noticed that Wikipedia:Ididn'thearthat redirects to Wikipedia:Competence is required but WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT all redirect to Wikipedia:Disruptive editing#Failure or refusal to "get the point". Should Wikipedia:Ididn'thearthat also redirect to Wikipedia:Disruptive editing#Failure or refusal to "get the point"? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:07, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Almost certainly, but best to nominate it for retargeting separately to this discussion about possibly deleting an unrelated redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 17:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 17:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Incivil, per nom. The label is inherently & unnecessarily insulting. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:55, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I call WP:SNOWBALL. No sense wasting any more effort talking about this. (Note: I created the redirect in the first place, and I have no problem at all with the consensus going against me.) --Guy Macon (talk) 01:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about removing WP:IWONTLISTEN as well, a redirect you created at the same time as WP:INEDUCABLE? (Reason? Because "I won't listen" describes or criticizes someone's *attitude* behind not getting a point. "IDIDNTHEARTHAT" describes an instance of an editor not listening to a point at a particular time, without getting into *why*. "ICANTHEARYOU" is not describing a permanent hearing disability, like deafness, it endeavors to do the same thing as "IDIDNTHEARTHAT". Trying to point out a user's attitude or personal quality preventing him from hearing a point, a "refusal to listen", is attempting to dig into a person's motives and so is personal and counter to the spirit of NPA. It comes off as aggressive personal accusation.) Thanks for your consider. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We should error on the side of civility, rather than a new and unnecessary redirect ("IWONTLISTEN") that comes off as personally accusatory. (It just *adds* to an already toxic & hostile WP environment. Wrong direction to head!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insulting and violates WP:CIVIL--Jax 0677 (talk) 09:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. I agree. Do we have to go through some special procedure or can I just blank them both with a "blanked by creator, please delete" edit summary and let the next sweep find them and delete them? --Guy Macon (talk) 09:43, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Just tag them with {{db-self}}. I'd also explicitly mention this discussion in the reason field to guarantee the revewing admin is aware of it. Thryduulf (talk) 09:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done on both pages. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 11:04, 22 July 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.