Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 August 20

WP:IRA → WikiProject Irish Republicanism
The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 01:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC) Having a wikiproject represented by the moniker for a paramilitary organisation is not conducive to harmonious editing. It has been used to promote an atmosphere of incivility and partisanship between conflicting groups of editors, that is entirely at odds with the spirit of the project. Moreover, it has political implications for the project that are counter to WP:NPOV. Wikiprojects should welcome all editors interested in the subject, this redirect displayed at the top of the page implicitly aligns the project with a (violent) movement. WP:IR, the obvious redirect, is perfectly sufficient. Rockpock e  t  19:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC) *Delete per nom and as unnecessarily inflammatory/divisive/deterring.  Melsaran  (talk) 19:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete It should be noted that this shortcut came about when a editor set up an WikiProject Irish Republican Army with this shortcut, this proposal was rejected and it seems the links where then redirected to WikiProject Irish Republicanism instead of being deleted.--padraig 20:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Let's call a spade a spade. The archived talk pages of the project seem to have disappeared, but as I recall there was some chortling among members about being able to use WP:IRA. Seems appropriate, seeing as the vast majority of the project's work seems to be about glorifying Provisional IRA members and attacks and removing anything that might show them in a bad light; rather than covering past republicanism and nationalism and current constitutional republicanism and nationalism. Bastun BaStun not BaTsun 20:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment the idea was brought up here it never came about.--padraig 20:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Your comments are an example of exactly why this is a bad idea. There may well be some editors with the motives you describe, but labelling an entire project as such does little to promote NPOV and encourage neutral editors. There will be few editors willing to join and address constitutional republicanism and nationalism if we continue to label it WP:IRA. Rockpock  e  t  20:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Changed my mind. The essence of my argument is that using the shortcut WP:IRA doesn't mean "we support the IRA". It means: "our WikiProject attempts to improve Wikipedia's coverage of, amongst other subjects, IRA-related subjects". Yes, the WikiProject is not exclusively about the IRA, but it does fall within the merit of the WikiProject. When you say "but it makes it look like we support the IRA, because we have that shortcut, and that discourages NPOV", I'm going to use a reductio ad absurdum and say: is a member of WikiProject Fascism automatically a fascist? No, they are trying to improve Wikipedia's coverage of fascism-related subjects. That's entirely appropriate.  Melsaran  (talk) 21:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment But Wikiproject IRA was nixed and renamed Irish Republicanism after only a week or so by its members, because of an awareness of this very issue ("With a name like this it looks like we're just a bunch of fenians writing propoganda about a pile o' terrorists"). Indeed, its the members that are !voting delete here. One would imagine when the very members of a Wikiproject request deletion because they find an abbreviation for their project "unnecessary and inflammatory" we should listen. Moreover, if we follow, reductio ad absurdum, the rationale provided by Melsaran, we should have shortcuts for all the paramilitaries and factions involved in Republicanism: WP:PIRA, WP:IRB, WP:INLA...? Rockpock  e  t  21:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Unnecessary and inflammatory, especially as User:Bastun frequently uses it to attack editors. Brixton Busters 21:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Then tell User:Bastun not to do that. That's not a valid reason to delete a redirect.  Melsaran  (talk) 21:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there a valid reason for the redirect to exist in the first place? As long as it does people will misrespresent the project, as can be seen above. Brixton Busters 21:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is. The IRA falls within the project's scope.  Melsaran  (talk) 12:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it is only part of the project's scope. Would WP:BNP, WP:COMBAT18, WP:NAZI and WP:HOLOCAUSTDENIAL be appropriate redirects to the "Fascism" project, as they all fall within the project's scope? Brixton Busters 16:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, needlessly inflammatory, appears to have no purpose other than to disparage its subject.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  09:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, so let's delete the redirect WP:FASCISM as well, because anyone who uses that redirect is a fascist.  Melsaran  (talk) 12:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Lovely straw man you have there.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  13:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Not really. Why is it "inflammatory"? Because one may think that a member of a WikiProject that intends to improve Wikipedia's coverage of IRA-related articles is an IRA member? That's why I made that comparison. By the way, the "appears to have no purpose other than to disparage its subject" quote is from CSD G10, attack pages, and this page doesn't attack anyone.  Melsaran  (talk) 13:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You are incorrect. A "page that has no purpose other than disparagement" is the definition of an attack page.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  14:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Nice red herring. Why is this an attack page, or why is it inflammatory?  Melsaran  (talk) 14:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well duh. Are you going to keep throwing fallacies and straw men at me, or what?  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  14:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sigh. You said "needlessly inflammatory". Now I ask you: why is it inflammatory? That's not a fallacy.  Melsaran  (talk) 14:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The reason it is inflammatory is because there has been a vitriolic edit-wars between those editors with Irish Republican sympathies and those with British (for want of a better word) sympathies ranging for over a year on Wikipedia. Certain editors have taken to labelling other editors as "terrorists" or "terrorist sympathisers" and WP:IRA has become an convenient tool for said editors to imply just that. It is very difficult for the administrators in the middle of this to take action against such incivil behaviour when those editors can justify its use as referring to a Wikiproject rather than the paramilitary oganisation. I think this is a perfect example of when we should be cutting through the process bullshit and consider three things: 1. Every member of the Wikiproject it refers to who has commented has !voted for its deletion and 2. Its only documented use (as far as I can tell) in the last month or two has been with inflammatory undertones and 3. The only keep !vote (other than your own) is couched in terms of questioning the motives of the project. Does that not tell you something? Rockpock  e  t  19:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "The only keep !vote (other than your own) is couched in terms of questioning the motives of the project. Does that not tell you something?" No of course it doesn't. The arguments are to be considered, and the fact that nobody but me has yet presented an argument for keeping the redirect doesn't mean that I'm incorrect. And it's very unfortunate that some use it to represent the WikiProject as pro-IRA, but we can't help that. If someone labels you as a "terrorist sympathiser", then they obviously have to reread WP:NPA. Still, if you really think that this redirect does more harm than good because it is too often abused, delete it, I don't care, but in itself (without people abusing it), it is a valid redirect. Just wanted to make that clear.  Melsaran  (talk) 19:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't disgree with you that in itself, in terms of redirect policy, your argument is perfectly valid. Its simply that in this case I believe the wider context, elucidated in the three points above, provide a stronger case. I appreciate your contribution, though. Rockpock  e  t  17:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as per nomination. GiollaUidir 18:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, as per nomination, meaningless in the conext. When did republicism = ira? Propose it to go, keep with the real world. Thepiper 17:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment When did republicism = ira? Indeed. I'd support deletion if the project participants actually seemed to write about broad Irish republicanism and nationalism (which the project was apparently set up to do), rather than concentrating on writing about *IRA members and their acts, censoring any criticism of them and ensuring that lists of victims of IRA atrocities are excised from the encyclopedia while ensuring that lists of victims of British atrocities are included. Bastun BaStun not BaTsun 16:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Commment Thanks for admitting your reasoning is based on bias, and has nothing to do with the redirect save you wanting to continue to abuse project members. Brixton Busters 06:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete disparagement. Carlossuarez46 22:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Neither should it be WP:PIRA. --John 16:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete, per nom. Ordinarily this would be an obvious keeper, but Bastun's highly inappropriate and incivil comments and accusations against a whole Wikiproject based on purported actions of a few individuals who may or may not have been members makes it clear that the project's desire to have this label removed from their project is entirely justified.  (His notions of the power that a Wikiproject is able to wield also seem highly inflated and confused.)  Brixton Buster's accusations of abuse are also somewhat out of line, but given Bastun's own comments here, I find it hard to be too concerned about that.  Both editors should probably take some time out to cool off, though.  Melsaran's arguments to keep are good ones, but in this case, at this time, I think the harm being caused by this shortcut is outweighing its possible minor benefits, and I feel that a Wikiproject should have some say over their own shortcuts.  Xtifr tälk 21:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary → Wikipedia
The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 01:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC) Redirect makes no sense at all. This used to be a cross-namespace redirect to Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but they chose to redirect it here instead. The encyclopedia article Wikipedia doesn't cover the "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" thing.  Melsaran  (talk) 10:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * There's some history here that needs to be taken care of due to a copy/paste move. I'll go ahead and take care of this now... --- RockMFR 17:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Deleting policy pages... very exciting business :) --- RockMFR 17:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Off-topic, unencyclopedic, and unnecessary redirect.  Cool Blue  talk to me 20:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Wikipedia namespace or delete; confusing and useless with its current target. Kusma (talk) 05:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but restore to the version that pointed to the Wikipedia policy page. Cross-namespace redirects are not inherently evil and this one was useful for years.  There is no possibility that a person looking for this topic would be looking for anything other than the policy page.  WP:ASR does not apply.  Rossami (talk) 22:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete (slightly preferred) or retarget per Kusma and Rossami. This really only makes sense and is useful if targeted at the appropriate policy subsection, but, while I don't mind a few, short cross-namespace redirects (XNRs) for some of our most important policy and discussion pages, I would like to try to keep XNRs to a minimum.  This only refers to a small subsection of a policy, and is not short enough to be a useful shortcut, and overall, I just don't think it's quite useful enough to justify itself.  It is a borderline case, though, so my preference for deletion is mild.  Xtifr tälk 21:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Osu! Tatakae! Ōendan → Osu! Tatakae! Ouendan
The result of the debate was tag with db-move.  Melsaran  (talk) 17:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Make way for move to Osu! Tatakae! Ōendan, as it is the correct title. Amake 16:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'