Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 April 12

April 12

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 12, 2015.

功率重量比

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) 14:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 发动机功率 → Engine power  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. These are not Chinese topics. Gorobay (talk) 21:04, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete since the Wiki isn't a translation dictionary. --Lenticel (talk) 01:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Lenticel, WP:NOTDICT, and moreso, not a translation dictionary. I think this is Japanese not Chinese but I try to find out, as the Unicode symbols are much the same for kanji and not distinguished in that way. Si Trew (talk) 07:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is Chinese, the simplified version to be specific. Suffice it to say all three characters of "发动机" (engine) would not be written like this in Japanese ("発動機"). Still it wouldn't affect the decision here much as there is no specific affinity with either language. Delete 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 13:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOTDIC Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary. These topics have no particular affinity for any language -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 10:03, 13 April 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.

శ్రీ లంక మాతా

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 April 21#శ్రీ లంక మాతా

Gangsta Bitch Barbie

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) 14:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gangsta Bitch Barbie → Null set  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
  • Gangsta bitch barbie → Null set  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This was a band which changed its name to Nullset. It was moved in 2009, then Nullset went through AfD with a result to merge to the mathematics term, which of course doesn't mention the band under either name (see discussion here). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as WP:RFD#D5 makes no sense. I note that empty set is also an article, and perhaps the two should be combined, but that's not our business. Si Trew (talk) 07:37, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "nullset" the band was already deleted -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 10:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete following consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nullset that the band is not notable. Ivanvector (talk) 16:29, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sometimes, when a bot corrects a double redirect, the WP:ASTONISH-ment factor is hilarious. Yes, I laughed a bit when I saw this. Steel1943 (talk) 22:08, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Where did it go before the bot "fixed" it? You've piqued my interest. Si Trew (talk) 05:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Per the nominator's link to the related AfD discussion, a deleted article about a band that was determined to be non-notable. Steel1943 (talk) 17:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this along with Gangsta bitch barbie. Tavix |  Talk  22:18, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We do not have other caps variants Gangsta Bitch barbie, Gangsta bitch Barbie. I imagine Tavix checked too. Sure, the caps variant should be deleted too. I also checked Gangster Bitch Barbie, Gangster bitch Barbie, Gangster Bitch barbie all of which are red. Si Trew (talk) 05:26, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only thing I checked was this page. Tavix |  Talk  13:09, 14 April 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.

Johnni

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) 14:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Johnni → Johnni Black  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Looking at the sources, I don't see any indication that Johnni Black goes by "Johnni". So this redirect seems implausible to me. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 00:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I would think that anyone's first name is likely to be used when searching for that person, especially if the spelling is unique, as in this case. Neelix (talk) 02:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The first name is an unusal spelling of the name, and so it is unlikely that someone would be looking for something else. Therefore keep as helpful. Si Trew (talk) 07:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now per above. I've found other "Johnni's" during my search but they don't have their own articles yet. --Lenticel (talk) 13:10, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a valid {{R from given name}}. I've tagged it as such. Tavix |  Talk  05:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Johnny as a {{R from alternate spelling}} -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 08:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There aren't any entries on the Johnny disambiguation page that refer to people named Johnni. Neelix (talk) 01:25, 17 April 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.

WP:SEALION

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. There seems to be consensus that the concept of "sealioning" is not well known enough to make this a helpful redirect. This could change in the future, I suppose. --BDD (talk) 14:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is an offensive neologism used to disparage one side in a "culture war." It has no place on a policy page. 169.57.0.216 (talk) 07:08, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The issue is not the term's notability but that it's derogatory, as explained in EurekaLott's link. If this were a standard redirect, no problem, we have for example a disambiguation page for "faggot." But we would never consider redirecting WP:FAGGOT to a policy page, regardless of suitability. Interestingly enough Jimbo himself has some thoughts on the term. 169.57.0.216 (talk) 05:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as WP:POVPUSH. Si Trew (talk) 07:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Offensive? Offensive to whom? It seems like an accurate place to point the shortcut. I don't see what we'd gain by deleting it. - Eureka Lott 20:18, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can someone provide a story or history behind this redirect? "Sea lion" isn't mentioned in the targeted page and I can't seem to figure out the connection between the two. Tavix |  Talk  00:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The term comes from a Wondermark comic. Know Your Meme has a good overview. - Eureka Lott 02:42, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It might be a bit confusing to our non-meme savvy readers. I'm inclined to change my vote to keep if the keep proponents can show in the article that this is a valid synonym to "civil" POV-pushing. That comic is kind of cute although I have no evidence to support that claim ;) .--Lenticel (talk) 03:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional keep. EurekaLott's source made the whole "sealioning" thing clear to me, and I definitely think there should be a place for this redirect because it's something that happens on Wikipedia. However, I think there should be a section in Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing (or a new essay?) that fully explains the term so people like me know what you memers are talking about. So I'm leaning to keep it if/when that happens, otherwise I'm neutral. Tavix |  Talk  04:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it's that crazy of a suggestion. I actually think that solution makes the most sense. Now we just need someone to make it... Tavix |  Talk  16:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Excuse me for being 43 yesterday but I have no idea what this "meme" is supposed to mean. Could someone give me a clue? Do you all know it and I am not in the club? If so, it is useless. If not, not. Si Trew (talk) 08:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Lenticel makes a valid point, a little tangentially. WP namespace is shared between Wikipedia itself and WikiProjects, somewhat unfortunately. We could take it to WP:MAMMALS which redirects to Wikipedia:WikiProject Mammals. 08:07, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
OK I checked EurekaLott's links (thank you for those) and it was invented in Septmber 2014. That is a neologism and does not belong in an encyclopaedia until it becomes established term. I think we should at least wait until it is in a printed dictionary. (WP:RS). sealion at Wiktionary does not have it in this sense, in fact that is a DAB to saying "less common spelling for sea lion" although I would spell it as one word, so I am less common, apparently (woo hoo!). I am not sure we have an article on word fusing, over time words tend to jump together and lose their spaces. I wouldn't be able to RS that now but it is a well known linguistic trend. Nevertheless, (or "Never the less") this is misleading. Si Trew (talk) 08:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'll try to draft a new essay for your consideration. Need to go on the big computer so I have room to move. Report back in an hour or so but will be at Draft:Sealion (obviously we then decide where to move it). Si Trew (talk) 08:23, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is cute and useful- as a redirect, it's not going to confuse anybody as the regular title will still be in place (unless I guess they're trying to get our policies on the aquatic mammal?) I'm sorry to hear that some people find it offensive. Humour is like that, I guess. Fully in support with expanding civil POV pushing with more info, though. I will note that the notice seems to have broken the redirect. Would somebody be able to fix that? PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I totally agree with you about WP:NOTCENSORED and so on, I just disagree whether this is actually useful. If you think people will search for it I should certainly change my !vote to a keep, but I am not sure it is useful. 09:13, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
(ec) Delete. Not even going to bother with the draft, that I have done many times before. This is a neologism that appears in a cartoon. It has not, as far as I can find out, been used before or since. New words come into use every day and I used to contribute, on paper slips, to the Longman Dictionary of New Words especisally to get the first use registered. But it has been, now, and we have the history and it is time for it to be deleted, no good comes of it, it is a nonce word and WP:NOTDICT. Si Trew (talk) 09:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)−[reply]
Forgive me if I'm mistaken- I believe you may have accidentally voted twice. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:42, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're right I did. But I still go with Delete. Thanks sincerely for pointing that out. Si Trew (talk) 12:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. To declare an interest, you are talking to the man who made, with another editor, {{etymology}}. That does not give me any more right than you to have an opinion, but I do know what I am talking about sometimes (not very often). Just declaring the interest. Si Trew (talk) 09:18, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I wasn't familiar with this term either until I read through the links above, but it has a definite meaning as indicated by internet usage, and that meaning is accurately reflected by the current target. Being a neologism (it most certainly is) does not preclude its usage as an essay shortcut here, and as I seem to keep having to say to people, pages existing in project space do not imply endorsement of any concept by Wikipedia. I do wonder if Wikipedia:Wikihounding might be a better target, but I don't think so. I'm confused as to who this is alleged to be insulting to, but I think that WP:SPADE may apply. It's also not clear to me what Jimbo's opinion of this is, from the linked thread. Also support Lenticel's idea to add a new WikiFauna entry. Ivanvector (talk) 17:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment with regards to creating a wikifauna page To anyone considering making a wikifauna page for the sealion, and redirecting WP:SEALION to it, please please PLEASE don't do that. Anything related to gamergate breeds drama like mad, and while sealion is meant as an insult gamergate supporters have taken it as a mascot too. The inevitable and highly depressing result of such a page existing, would be edit warring and POV pushing on what is meant to be a humorous page, followed by a nasty MFD.Bosstopher (talk) 18:29, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This page is nothing more than an "Epic may-may" that somebody wanted to put on Wikipedia. Pepsiwithcoke (talk) 21:12, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Bosstopher really provided the key information there. The "mascot of gamergate supporters" in question, as far as I can tell, was chosen ironically, in response to detractors using the term. It is a term very specific to those detractors and to like-minded individuals; that is, it is particular to a very specific POV. I say it is neither "humour" as User:PeterTheFourth posits, nor inherently "offensive" as the proposer argues; rather, it is in-group identification - a shibboleth, in other words. IMO this is harmful for two reasons:
it draws undue attention towards a not-very-noteworthy essay (POV-pushing is bad regardless of civility; incivility is a separate problem; and the observation that "pov-pushing isn't always incivil" doesn't really add anything to a rational Wikipedian's ability to detect either);
it encourages the formation of editor blocs by highlighting that like-mindedness (an issue I would also have with any other shibboleth).
Incidentally, I have seen the argument made that, per the moral principles of the same people lauding it, the Wondermark cartoon in question ought to have pretty much the opposite meaning to that which has been ascribed. That is (I don't do the argument justice here, but you get the gist), it rather clearly depicts a wealthy and thus "privileged" couple exhibiting prejudice towards a presumably "oppressed" sea lion, whose attempts at self-justification are dismissed as a need to dominate the conversation. Malki apparently disagrees. (So much for "death of the author", I guess.) 70.24.4.51 (talk) 21:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The meaning of the comic more closely matches WP:HOUNDING. Rhoark (talk) 23:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete This whole thing breeds too much drama. There are better labels for this. 72.92.42.4 (talk) 00:21, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It is plainly WP:NOTFINISHED, we do not chuck in an article or redirect simply for a neologism, we need WP:RS of which there are none, since the only reference to the article is the article itself. Falls on WP:PRIMARY as well. I have listed here about five of Wikipedia's core policies and yet it still doesn't go WP:SPEEDY. Do you want me to take it to WP:CSD? They would probably just bash it back so no point. I appreciate cartoons, I draw them, but I am not notable. This is patently a nonce word that will never be used again and was invented for a joke in a cartoon, and not a very funny one, he is no Gary Larson or Bill Watterson. Si Trew (talk) 01:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In my view, one editor, or a small group of editors, does not get to claim ownership of a loaded term in the WP namespace and redirect it to a mere essay. If it was a guideline or policy there'd be room for argument, but this subtly lends a spurious sense of authority to the essay and in the long term could create (by inertia) a resistance to replacing the redirect with something more balanced. We'd soon have editors saying "stop WP:SEALIONing" and some editors would assume it to be a policy or guideline without checking. Not good.--greenrd (talk) 09:05, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. WP:RfD tends to be an exclusive club for the simple reason that not very many people hang out here... which is no fault of the regulars heree but just how it happens. But the telling thing I think is that Bustopher Jones is a cat named in T. S. Eliot's Old Possum's Book of Practical Cats, 1922 I think, and so this is obviously an in.joke. I can check that as I have it in original from Faber & Faber, for whom Eliot was an editor for many years, so it is from the horse's mouth, so to speak. The difference with the WP:RFD club is that anyone is welcome to enter without charge. Si Trew (talk) 12:31, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Despite being asked to whom it is offensive, OP has failed to reply. I think getting touchy over something as small as this is a bit absurd. — Richard BB 16:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • OP here. Well, it's likely offensive to the group it's intended to disparage. What an odd question. 169.57.0.213 (talk) 17:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Which group is it intended to disparage? People who engage in this behaviour, the people harassed by it, or some other group? Ivanvector (talk) 18:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why, are there groups whose disparagement wikipedia encourages? That seems contrary to WP:NPOV. A link was provided above and referenced in my opening comment. I could repeat it here but I'd rather encourage you to read this discussion fully if you're casting a vote. 169.57.0.217 (talk) 19:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've read the links provided as I noted above in my actual !vote, but what I'm saying to you here is that I don't understand who you're implying is offended by this term. Other comments here suggest I'm not alone in missing the offense. If you think that the links you provided are clear, maybe you could try to paraphrase? Ivanvector (talk) 03:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Does me asking again for you to provide insight to further this discussion make me a sealion? If so, should I be offended if someone were to point that out? For the record, were someone to point that out (and having not already been pointed out by me) then I would not be offended, because it is a simple and accurate description of my behaviour. I mean, I might be offended by the implication that my behaviour is disruptive, but not by the simple fact that someone accurately described what I am doing. Or, on the contrary, should you be offended because I am sealioning, if that's what I'm doing? Ivanvector (talk) 03:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Offensive"? It may be negative, but to say that it's offensive seems to be backed up by nothing. Who, precisely, is being offended by this? It's not some kind of slur, after all. — Richard BB 19:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It doesn't seem to pertain to Civil POV pushing at all. The comic itself is extremely ambiguous too, both parties are in the wrong. In fact, this only seems to apply to situations in a public place. The idea isn't applicable to WP where consensus building is necessary. I can think of no reasons to keep this. TyTyMang (talk) 04:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is a vivid metaphor, like climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man or dropping the stick and backing slowly away from the horse carcass. And while the term sea lion was initially associated with GamerGate, on Wikipedia it really refers to relentless wikilawyering and combativeness that is independent of any specific cause or political background. Sea lions are commonly encountered on Wikipedia but they usually don't have long careers as they normally get blocked because of their pushiness and self-righteousness. Liz Read! Talk! 20:32, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This isn't wikipedia lore. It's a relatively unknown meme from an insignificant twitter fight. Importing it and the associated drama here is not in our interests. No thanks. José Antonio Zapato (talk) 16:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unrelated discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Welcome to Wikipedia, José Antonio Zapato (talk · contribs)! I appreciate your deep insight into Wikipedia lore. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you PeterTheFourth (talk · contribs) for the courteous welcome. Can I assume you are American? One of my favorite American quotes has always been "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people." I would one day like to enshrine this in policy but I suspect this will be an uphill battle. For now I must content myself with redirects. José Antonio Zapato (talk) 03:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No policy-based reason has been proposed for deletion. The influx of SPAs shows this nomination is part of some off-wiki campaign, but redirects should not be deleted unless reasons related to improving the encyclopedia are produced. The SEALION term is not inherently offensive. Johnuniq (talk) 03:26, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For reasons unknown, the editor who created the redirect was not notified of this discussion (I, strangely, was)- this has now been remedied. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:30, 18 April 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_April_12&oldid=1138579954"