Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 July 13

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) 20:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Phantom type → Generalized algebraic data type  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Phantom types → Generalized algebraic data type  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

As already mentioned on the talk page of the redirect target, at Talk:Generalized algebraic data type#Phantom type, phantom types (in the sense of Phantom type - HaskellWiki, or Phantom type parameters - Rust By Example, or Strong types for strong interfaces - Fluent C++) are not really discussed at the redirect target article at all, and this has been the case since at least 2009. I think it would be better here to have a redlink than a misleading redirect. Tea2min (talk) 11:42, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and WP:RDEL #10. The topic is completely opaque to me, but the term clearly isn't defined or discussed in any depth in the current target. @Tea2min: Should the plural Phantom types (which was nominated at RfD in 2011 with a different justification, and kept) be added to this nomination? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:34, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: The plural redirect Phantom types should be added to this nomination. Thank you for noticing this. – Tea2min (talk) 06:11, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Seems to refer to some kind of data type [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] but it would need to be explained better at the target if it is to remain a redirect. That it is just listed at the top doesn't really help. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:48, 13 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.

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) 20:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Mekong Bobtail → Natural bobtail#Cats  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Karelian Bobtail → Natural bobtail#Cats  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Delete so it redlinks. This is one of the World Cat Federation standardized breeds, and presumptively notable (it should appear in most post-2010 cat breed books, and various secondary coverage in cat fancier magazines, though I've let my own [meown?] subscriptions lapse). This should not redirect to a one-liner at Natural bobtail, nor to the entry at List of cat breeds. Probably the only reason this does not exist as an article yet is that it's not redlinking, so one one's noticed it's missing. Adding Karelian Bobtail for exactly the same reasons (including WCF standard). I'm likely to create the articles myself at some point.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:26, 13 July 2018 (UTC); revised:  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:29, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and WP:RPOSS. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 06:19, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:16, 21 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.

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. This is a difficult close, not least because there isn't a clear numerical majority. I'm wary of such closes looking like supervotes, though neither did a no consensus close seem appropriate here. The strongest arguments against this redirect were its recency, perhaps to the point of POINT-iness, and the lack of an obvious connection with the target page—i.e., that "not this shit again" could connote different things to different editors. No weight was given to the idea of the redirect being profane. In that sense, the keep voters successfully made the argument that we could have such a redirect, but not that we should. --BDD (talk) 20:08, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:NOTTHISSHITAGAIN → Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Wikipedia:CLUSTERFUCK → Wikipedia:Article titles  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Two redirects created solely to make a point in a previous RfD (see MrX and Ritchie333's comments here). More to the point these should be deleted because they are vague and indiscriminate: there is a lot of "this shit" which evokes "not again" reactions, and many Wikipedia things end up being clusterfucks. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:01, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have speedied WP:CLUSTERFUCK per WP:G7 (if anyone really wants it kept, they can re-create it and take responsibility for it). WP:NOTTHISSHITAGAIN was already referred to in jest in several discussions, particularly by BullRangifer, and appears to be in the same vein as WP:WHOEVERSMELTITDEALTIT, WP:POPCORN, WP:CESSPIT and WP:Dramaboard - there seems to be a general consensus that "silly" redirects to ANI are within discretion of Wikipedia humour and not necessarily WP:POINT scoring as such. I'm not going to fight consensus on this and say it's vitally important to the project that we keep these redirects (because it isn't), but rather, you know .... sometimes at ANI we all need to lighten up a bit. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:06, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict × 2) Sure, but why ANI, and not WP:AE or WP:PC2014 or WP:LTA or User talk:Jimbo or WP:PERENNIAL or any of a number of other pages where repetitive shit happens? Interestingly, a Wikipedia-space search for "not this shit again" ([6]) brings up several ANI archives but also a number of discussions in other venues (AfD is represented frequently). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:14, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've no idea why we have lots of "joke" redirects to ANI - we just do. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:19, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I know, and I'm not generally against them, ANI is a silly place. It's just that this one could possibly have other uses, whereas one like WP:Dramaboard is unlikely to. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:57, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie333, not that it's impossible for me to use that redirect, but someone else did use it recently on my talk page. I have nothing against deleting it. That's an odd redirect, and I don't recall ever using it. See here. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 00:38, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Shortcuts like this just amp up the battleground rhetoric. It's obviously intended to discredit someone who starts a discussion that someone else doesn't like. You wonder why we have so much drama? This is it.- MrX 🖋 14:12, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your point of view but that honestly wasn't my intent - as I mentioned, I've logged a whole bunch of these redirects at User:Ritchie333/Euphemisms. It wasn't my intention to disrespect or insult your views, which you are perfectly entitled to make, and I apologise if it came across that way. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:15, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may have misread my comment. When I wrote "It's obviously intended to discredit someone who starts a discussion that someone else doesn't like", I was referring to using the shortcut in a discussion. I don't profess to know your reason for creating the redirect, nor is it really relevant.- MrX 🖋 14:34, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm only half-joking when I say that redirecting WP:CLUSTERFUCK to Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics/American politics would make perfect sense... And the half joking is only really there because nobody really uses that wikiproject page. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:19, 6 July 2018 (UTC) [reply]

  @MPants at work: I would use the same target as WP:ARBAP2, I think.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:26, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This "delete every word I don't like" bullshit needs to stop. WP:NOTCENSORED. It's permissible for Wikipedians to have a sense of humor and for it to not be Sunday-school humor. The fears that shortcuts that have a swear-word in them are going to cause tremendous psycho-freakout flamewars never seem to have any proof behind them. A shortcut like this is qualitatively different from, say, WP:DICK and WP:DIVA, which were directly intended as offensive labels for another editor (and we still kept WP:JERK and WP:FANATIC and various others anyway, and we still even kept those other two as soft redirects). NOTTHISSHITAGAIN is an expression of personal frustration at our bureaucracy and its ineffectiveness. I want to be very clear that if you try to take an essay that expresses the same idea in a lot more verbiage, including a lot more cuss-words and ranting, including right in the title, and get it deleted at MfD, you will be SNOW opposed. The community is remarkably tolerant of editorial criticism of WP process and community, as long as it's not an outright NOTHERE anti-WP slagging. There's been a weird little squeamish "NOTCENSORED doesn't apply when I don't wanna see that word" pseudo-consensus going on at RfD and its needs to come to an end.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:23, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strawman argument. No one is suggesting this be deleted because the word itself is "inappropriate". Ibadibam (talk) 20:17, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except they are, in poorly disguised form. The idea that it's "offensive" is the only basis for the argument that that the redirect is pointy, battlegroundy, etc. The only other clearly discernible rationale offered is that ANI in particular isn't the only possible target for which the phrase could be meaningful to someone, but that's not a real rationale, since a) it applies to virtually every shortcut we have that is or approaches natural language and isn't some scrambled acronym like RMTR; and b) it would preclude any such human-readable shortcut ever being used to point anywhere, other than perhaps to a disambiguation page that we don't need. None of these rationales stand up to even momentary scrutiny.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:42, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, it does not make sense pointing this to a dramaboard, as Ivanvector demonstrated above. I do think the redirect would be useful pointing to an essay on this topic, and would rather reserve the redirect for that purpose. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:19, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I could buy this if the essay existed. I very strongly doubt anyone would resist the usurpation of the redir to point to it, ergo we have no need to delete it now, and it's already in some (albeit minor) use to point to where it does now point.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:43, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Aside: I think I have actually found the ultimate proper destination for WP:CLUSTERFUCK: Talk:Marketing of electronic cigarettes. I remember the e-cigs topic area being awful when I ran away from it a couple of years ago. It's an order of magnitude worse now. I propose that we keep this shortcut around and re-point it periodically to the most WP:LAME page on the system. I'm actually less than half joking and am already thinking of how to write up the nominations page. >;-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:42, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - many Wikipedia namespace shortcuts contain profanity; if anything is to be done, they should be addressed as a class. That aside, and more to the point, Wikipedia namespace shortcuts are commonly ambiguous, unlike mainspace redirects. I think the creation circumstances are interesting but don't find them egregious. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 21:51, 14 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.