Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 June 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 deleted by NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Dabomb87 (talk) 15:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• WikiProject:Indiana → Wikipedia:Wikiproject Indiana (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Inappropriate cross-namespace redirect. Per WP:RFD#DELETE, number 6. —SW— ^express 21:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Qrsdogg (talk) 18:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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. Consensus is that this redirect is disruptive because of (among other reasons) its length. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• (full title hidden for display purposes) → Wikipedia:Please be a giant duck, so we can ban you (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Disruptively long, shouting, has been used a grand total of once. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep This was already nominated for deletion once and survived. Appreciate consensus can change but it wasn't long ago either. Egg Centric 05:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Which of the speedy keep criteria do you think applies? ╟─TreasuryTag►Counsellor of State─╢ 18:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  While I know that your pointing out every pedantic "error" I make on Wikipedia is meant well, please stop it, it's irritating. Egg Centric 17:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Let's call this a procedural keep because we shouldn't discuss the same thing every 5 minutes then. Egg Centric 17:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  So WP:NOTAGAIN then? Do you actually have an actual, tangible reason to keep this redirect? ╟─TreasuryTag►Acting Returning Officer─╢ 17:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the recent discussion. Although that closed as no consensus, it was only 3 months ago which is rather unlikely to be long enough for consensus to have significantly altered. Thryduulf (talk) 18:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete—per nom, it's disruptive and has no legitimate uses that I can tell. Discussions which result in 'no consensus' are frequently relisted within a couple of months, and I would caution people against leaving more WP:NOTAGAIN arguments. ╟─TreasuryTag►Counsellor of State─╢ 18:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Please see the previous discussion for a refutation of the "no legitimate uses" argument. Thryduulf (talk) 19:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I've read the previous discussion. There were some editors who felt that it had legitimate uses. There were some editors who thought that it didn't. You agree with the former group. I agree with the latter. Is there anything else you'd like me to explain? ╟─TreasuryTag►without portfolio─╢ 19:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Wow, useless. The WP:SHORTCUT notation is intended to be used for actual shortcuts (i.e. where the shortcut link text is actually shorter than the full wikilink text). This is clearly a failed attempt to be humorous and/or ironic. —SW— ^verbalize 21:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Ok, haha, good joke, we had our laughs. Now what else is it good for? -- œ^™ 12:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't see any problem with having a humorous redirect to a humorous essay. I'm at a loss as to why the existence of this redirect is somehow disrupting the project. Qrsdogg (talk) 18:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm at a loss as to why the existence of this redirect is somehow disrupting the project. I don't know if you noticed, but it's actually quite long, generally requiring one's Internet window to be extended by about 50% in order to contain itself. And as has also been mentioned, it is scarcely used, so its deletion would not cause any real problems. ╟─TreasuryTag►quaestor─╢ 18:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I actually did notice that it was a little long, but I don't think its length is really disrupting the project. Qrsdogg (talk) 22:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  So why do you think other people are finding it problematic then? ╟─TreasuryTag►directorate─╢ 22:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Good question, but honestly the motivations of other contributors are often inscrutable to me. Qrsdogg (talk) 03:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  It would become disruptive if people started linking to it frequently. I'll demonstrate. Imagine this at an AfD discussion where a sockpuppet is suspected:

"Hey, Mr. Sock, why don't you go and read Wikipedia:AVERYGREATDEALOFCAPITALLETTERSTHATULTIMATELYREDIRECTTOTHEARTICLEREGARDINGTHECONCEPTTHATONWIKIPEDIAONEOUGHTTOBEAGIANTDUCKRATHERTHANASMALLOREVENMEDIUMDUCKSOTHATWECANBANYOU. I really think it would be in your best interest to read Wikipedia:AVERYGREATDEALOFCAPITALLETTERSTHATULTIMATELYREDIRECTTOTHEARTICLEREGARDINGTHECONCEPTTHATONWIKIPEDIAONEOUGHTTOBEAGIANTDUCKRATHERTHANASMALLOREVENMEDIUMDUCKSOTHATWECANBANYOU because Wikipedia:AVERYGREATDEALOFCAPITALLETTERSTHATULTIMATELYREDIRECTTOTHEARTICLEREGARDINGTHECONCEPTTHATONWIKIPEDIAONEOUGHTTOBEAGIANTDUCKRATHERTHANASMALLOREVENMEDIUMDUCKSOTHATWECANBANYOU has some very important information about sockpuppetry." —SW— ^communicate 21:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that was just the textbook definition of disrupting wikipedia to make a point. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 06:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, disruptively long. Agree that 3 months after a "no consensus" close appears to be a reasonable amount of time before renomination in this case. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This redirect was created by Funny's cousin, Not Funny. Kauffner (talk) 12:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This was a shortcut? I don't get it. Tavix |  Talk  22:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Snottywong. We don't really want to see this in actual use anywhere, but making it a shortcut encourages just that. It would disrupt pages with its length, and has no real benefits by existing, thus I see it as a net negative to the project. --Taelus (talk) 22:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Honestly, this one caught my eye only because it was so ridiculously long. Per Taelus' comments, this "shortcut" only encourages disruptive behaviour, and it should be removed. (Not to mention what it does to edit summaries, watchlists, and histories whenever these discussions come up.) – RobinHood70 ^talk 03:57, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - redirects are only of value if they could conceivably be used. There is zero chance of this one ever being used. Bridgeplayer (talk) 16:46, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• keep per recent deletion discussion. It's too soon for a re-try. HominidMachinae (talk) 04:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NOTAGAIN? The last one closed as no consensus, so if anything the fact we seem to be gaining consensus here is good? Also, I just looked at the page history, and its a right mess on my resolution. Barely readable. What benefits does this redirect have? --Taelus (talk) 07:33, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, useless and annoying without being funny or original. If anybody needs redirects like this one, they can create them in user space. —Kusma (t·c) 10:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, not disruptive if used how it is intended to be used. Peter E. James (talk) 18:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The shortcut is almost longer than the essay it links to. It forces pages to have horizontal scroll bars. Most shortcuts are a few letters. How is this not disruptive? Sven Manguard Wha? 19:03, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It only creates horizontal scroll bars when used without a pipe, or as the title of a section. Peter E. James (talk) 19:15, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      Eh? You think that people are going to use this desperately long 'ooh look I've done a funny thing' link in a pipe where no-one can see it anyway? If that's the case, why can't they use a non-disruptive redirect in a pipe? ╟─TreasuryTag►Syndic General─╢ 08:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) There's a good way to use a redirect like this? Can you elaborate, please? – RobinHood70 ^talk 19:05, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it can be used in Wikipedia:Please be a giant duck, so we can ban you. Peter E. James (talk) 19:15, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To what end, though? All it does there is look ridiculous. – RobinHood70 ^talk 19:28, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is part of the humour - see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 March 29. Peter E. James (talk) 19:53, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The humor is lost on me, and apparently also on a great number of other people. I suspect this is a Will Ferell situation; what is humor to one person is worthless stupidity to another. Thus far, I can see nothing in this except that it is disruptive. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:20, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - a redirect whose title is longer and more difficult to remember than what it links to, and which we never want to see used un-piped? Serves no practical purpose, and use could easily be disruptive. Huon (talk) 14:17, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is not a shortcut. It encourages shouting at ducks. Humor may be effected when linking to the target by using a piped link, if desired; but attempting to discourage unwanted behavior by exemplifying it is discouraged. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It is too long (too many letters without whitespaces). Alex Spade (talk) 15:22, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 --Taelus (talk) 09:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Willy nilly (philosophy) → Fatalism (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Confusing, unclear redirect. œ^™ 00:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Fatalism is a common meaning for "willy nilly". The first definition in Wiktionary is "whether desired or not"; this is fatalism. Willy nilly should be returned to its disambiguation page state as discussed here and Willy nilly (philosophy) should be one of the entries. Neelix (talk) 01:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]