Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 August 12

August 12
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 12, 2008

BRIT → British Isles Terminology task force
The result of the debate was Keep. If there is a better target for the redirect, feel free to discuss, but deletion isn't necessary. Hatnotes can clear up any confusion. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The shortcut WP:BRIT is ambigous and confusing here. This is not just a British matter. We already have other redirects for this taskforce (such as WP:BIT, WP:BITERM and WP:BRITISHISLES). British Isles is an archipelago that includes the two large islands of Great Britain and Ireland, which contain two sovereign states, the UK (Britain) and the Republic of Ireland. The taskforce was set up to deal with problems relating to the fact that the Republic or Ireland is not in Britain, nor is 'British', but part of the island of 'Ireland' - Northern Ireland - is British. WP:BRIT here simply misleads people on the whole matter, and can be seen as either a move to remove Ireland from the term "British Isles" (as some want), or a move to make Britain seem like the most important factor! It's just simply not needed, either way. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Northern Ireland is not part of Britain either: that's why the UK is called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Olaf Davis | Talk 21:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The Northern Irish are officially "British Citizens" (it's on their passports). Great Britain is the geographical name of the major island - commonly Northern Ireland is called part of Britain (in the social/political sense), and always as British. Either way, this is about the "British Isles" - which contains the Republic of Ireland which is unquestionably not British. I happen to favour the word "British Isles", but this shortcut is clearly inflammatory - it has to go. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ahem, yes. I meant to say "not part of Great Britain" - looks like the moral is that these things are easy to get confused about! Olaf Davis | Talk 16:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't see anything wrong with the redirect: BRIT could be an abbreviation for Britain or for British Isles, which as you say are two different entities. If we have no use of a shortcut for the former, why not make use of it for the latter? And if there is something about Britain which it could plausibly link to, surely a note at the top saying "For the [page about Britain]], see WP:Whatever" will prevent confusion. There are plenty of Wikiproject shortcuts I accidentally go to thinking they'll be something else, but they swiftly point me to the correct place and it's not worth deleting them over. Olaf Davis | Talk 21:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * But are you happy with this ambiguity? Maybe I didn't make this clear - but this shortcut can cause serious offense in a place where people are trying to resolve serious differences. It wasn't placed in the best spirit either. A "Brit" is the common name for a British person. Irish people can get really upset by being mistakenly identified as being British. I also don't like the fact that it removes Ireland from the equation. It's just inflaming things.--Matt Lewis (talk) 22:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep There's a lot of shortcuts that have some ambiguity, but it isn't often that people are going to guess the target from the shortcut itself. -- Ned Scott 01:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Not before, no! (which makes it extra pointless!) But what about after they've followed the shortcut? And what about its disruptive presence in the taskforce page? I can see people choosing not to vote here - but to actively say "keep" is really quite shocking to me. It serves no purpose at all other than a negative and disruptive one. It's called "WP:BRIT" for heaven's sake! I know the editor who made it, and why he did it - it was purely to put the cat amongst the pidgeons. Why do these places so often reward these people? There are people who want to see this taskforce fail - and all that will happen is more locked Brtish and Irish articles.--Matt Lewis (talk) 02:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment This is an astonishingly bad faith nom, IMHO. As the creator of the shortcut in question, I was accused (by Matt) of trolling when I did so. The reason I created it was because the only shortcut for the project at the time -(more later)- was WP:BIT. Another editor - Clubjuggle - had requested that it be released to him for an essay he is writing. Matt objected for reasons I couldn't quite understand, seeming to imply that the work of the newly formed project would be harmed by the loss of the shortcut. So I created what I felt was the most appropriate shortcut. Matt objects to it. And so he has now made his point by creating 2 more,  WP:BITERM and WP:BRITISHISLES. I'd be quite happy with the former, but to me the latter is neither short nor handy and fails my tests for the usefulness of shortcuts. Matt suggests in his nom that there are "already" 3 shortcuts in place. The already is entirely disingenuous in that instance. Neither WP:BITERM, nor WP:BRITISHISLES, were "already" in use when I created WP:BRIT. Matt only created them yesterday evening. Personally I would suggest that WP:BRIT should remain until those participating in the project have there own say about its appropriateness first. Crispness (talk) 07:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm relinquishing BIT to the guy who has asked for it - we can use BRITISHISLES, BITASK and BISLES, and we have always had 'BIW' in preparation for the eventual BI workgroup page (which can use BRITISHISLES and BISLES as well). You made 'BRIT' to be as provacative as you possibly could! --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't. You are wrong again Matt. Crispness (talk) 16:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Both the nominator and the original creator of the redirect have been accused of acting in bad faith. Instead of arguing about whether those accusations are true let's consider the redirect on its own merits, which should be possible to determine regardless of the motivations of either editor. Olaf Davis | Talk 16:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ambiguity would be a justification for either retargetting the redirect or possibly converting it into a disambiguation page. Neither of those require the deletion of the page and page history.  Nor are they necessary to sort out here.  This is an issue to be sorted out on the respective Talk pages.  Rossami (talk) 13:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could find a safe home for it? The "British Isles" taskforce will eventually become a "British Isles" workgroup - it would be equally unsuitable there, but is bound to be tried by some clever dick now it exists. But such is life. If something isn't used - and it actually isn't being used now - why not delete it? I thought that was what this place was for.--Matt Lewis (talk) 14:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'

ad hominen → ad hominem
The result of the debate was Keep. Lenticel ( talk ) 00:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I've seen this used repeatedly on Talk pages by the same person, as the working link makes it look correct. It gives others the impression that it is the correct spelling too. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: In the cases like this is it right to redirect? I don't think it's all that wise in any case - there should be a special page for all misspellings - not a seamless redirect to the correct article! Maybe a 'Did you mean?' page that could redirect to the Wiktionary (or whatever it is called) and the main article too. A redirect simply cannot be right for clearly misspelled words like "ad hominen/m". It's just plain wrong, folks. And people's minds very often don't pick up on the difference, if anyone insists that this happens. The presence of a working link on Talk pages (as with the incorrect "ad hominen") makes people use it time and time again, and misleads others.--Matt Lewis (talk) 20:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * We do it pretty routinely for common misspellings. Sure, we'd love to educate them, but that's not really our function, and having it come up to a red link might encourage just an inferior page running in parallel.  Geogre (talk) 21:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, misspellings are one of the listed reasons for redirects - we apparently have at least 7001 of them. This seems like a plausible misspelling, so Keep. Olaf Davis | Talk 21:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: "Ad hominen" is being linked-to as a form of 'policy', and this is an exceptional problem here I feel - and the difference between this and other routine misspellings. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you clarify please: do you mean the editor in question has a deliberate policy of misspelling the word, or that he's linking to the article as though it were a Wikipedia policy? I'm not sure that either is grounds for deleting the redirect but at the moment I'm unclear as to exactly what you mean and hence what your objection is. Cheers, Olaf Davis | Talk 11:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The misspelling is not deliberate at all, by the way - the editor genuinely thinks he's spelling it right. My main point here is that as the misspelling produces a live link, he assumes that the spelling is correct. Others can be fooled by it too. He actually uses it as a kind of shorthand 'policy', as a template he favours used the word "ad hominem". Rather than use the template too often, he quotes - and misspells - the word in his various talk page comments. As it happens, he a very sensitive (over-sensitive) editor - but my point is in Wikipedia creating a live link for a misspelled word. It makes me very uncomfortable. At very least it needs a disam page - a straight redirect is misleading people, IMO. This being kind-of policy, made me think it could happen a lot. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I will do this. Looking at 'what links here' on the 'ad hominen' redirect page, it is mostly just him who is diong it. I originally thought a lot of people could be doing this, bu it appears not. He certainly did confuse me (and others?) with the spelling though (and I didn't link it when I referred to it once in the misspelt way - so it wouldn't appear in the 'what links here' list). I do think I have a fair point here, but if misspellings are redirected, then they are redirected I suppose. --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. Have you tried pointing out to him that he's misspelling it? What was his response? My opinion is as follows: current established policy is that we make and keep redirects for likely (or even vaguely likely, since redirects are cheap) misspellings: this policy is to help readers find the pages they're looking for. Creating a page that says "it looks like you were looking for foo" would be a sufficient break with precedent that it would need a pretty big justification, and I really don't feel that one user continually linking to a misspelled word is enough to ignore the policy and do so. Olaf Davis | Talk 19:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no good reason I can think of why we should delete a misspelling redirect, and to me, this request does not seem in good faith. In fact, I would say that you're trying to make the user look foolish by emphasizing the fact that he/she's misspelling a word. If you're talking about User:Bardcom, I would say that your lack of good faith is shown in this edit in which you twice mock his/her misspelling. If this is not a good faith request, it would fall under WP:POINT. That said, in reviewing Bardcom's (now User:HighKing's) talk page history, he/she has a gross misunderstanding of WP:AGF and ad hominem, as well as WP:meat puppets. See, for example, this archive], and this diff in which he/she says, "organizing like this is a form of meat puppetry." He/she uses the phrases nearly every time someone makes a "personal comment", and it's especially worrying since the user appears to have administrator abilities while still not understanding policy on conflicts. He/she makes a threat of blocking in a conflict he/she is involved in, when it's not a clearcut case to block. I'm not sure whether to tell him or to ask for consensus intervention, so I'll leave it to other people for now. While you brought up a much larger issue, Matt, the way you brought it up is improper. In the future, see WP:DISPUTE. --Raijinili (talk) 04:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * After a long review of User:HighKing's recent edits, he has not acted consistently with the above diffs for about half a month or more (which is to say, he didn't accuse anyone of ad hominem recently). Nor is he an admin at the moment. Matt isn't involved in a conflict with HighKing at the moment. I'm no longer worried, I'm just confused. It's not clear, though, whether HighKing understands AGF, ad hominem, and meat puppetry. --Raijinili (talk) 05:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've brought "ad hominen" here as I strongly believe that actual misspellings (not typos) should NOT be straight-redirected - as it effectively 'rewards' a bad spelling with a live-link (and a seeming 'green tick')! It's simply how I feel. The example you found where you think I was "taking the mick" out of HighKing is actually me be totally confused by the live-linked misspelling myself!! I was misinformed for a while (which I totally blame on Wikipedia - not on HighKing!). I've even suggested a more sensible approach to obvious misspellings in this Project pages's Talk page - you might like to read it. So I didn't make it 'personal' (ie use HighKing's name myself - and he has stopped using the word, so I haven't had a chance to tell him it's a misspelling). I wish you researched my approach with this, as much as my contact with him when he used the word, because at the moment we happen to be working together well on an important taskforce. If Wikpedia's current approach wasn't so obviously WRONG here, I wouldn't have brought it up. Honestly - WP is simply just wrong with this one. Typos are typos - but misspelling????? Jesus! Ask any academic or linguist etc: It's not helping people see the light, but entrenching and promoting the incorrect spelling - HighKing and I together provide complete proof of that. I've suggested a "Did you mean?" page (for 'bad spellings', not typos), that offers a link to the correct word, and the Wiktionary' too - what do you think? I sure it would be a very easy thing to implement. --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You claim that your misspelling of "ad hominem" was because of your own confusion? You spelled it correctly the third time in that edit, though. --Raijinili (talk) 19:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Check your talk page for a Warning template - the one first I've ever personally used. You just called me a liar - do it again I'll take it to an admin. I said I was confused for a while and I was. Who the hell do you think you are? --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) WP:Don't template the regulars
 * 2) Don't threaten people with trouble. I would prefer that you actually take it up with an admin rather than tell me that it's conditional on my behavior (i.e. make it a threat).
 * 3) We should assume good faith for as long as possible, and as long as there's reasonable doubt, not indefinitely. However, on this very page, you put up two redirects for discussion, and both of them are involved with disputes that you participated in. The first one was made without informing the creator, on the same day that the redirect was made. The other was for a misspelling which, from HighKing's reaction, you never pointed out to the person who was using it. I'm well within bounds to drop the assumption of good faith with these facts.
 * 4) I pointed out a fact in the edit. I implied that you were lying, by stating a fact. --Raijinili (talk) 22:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * An AGF warning is a just that - a warning - not a "threat"! It was the most subtle template on offer, and it is on your talk page - why this list in here? Your "implication" about me is appalling - I've based my argument on my confusion over this misspelling. How bloody dare you "imply" as you have that I am lying about how I was confused! You simply cannot do it, Raijinili - and I will take this up with an admin to show this to you, and in honour of my integrity too. You simply cannot go around telling other people how to behave (and boy do you do that!) when you completely ignore Wikipedia's core principles such as AFG yourself. You now say you are 'past AGF' based on your 'discovered facts'? Of course I'll post a dispute resolution, I have to now. Wouldn't you? I am no liar. If I say I was confused by the misspelling, you have to accept it. When I did write "ad hominem" once, by the way, I thought I had mispelt it when I looked back. I think I actually used both, though I only used it a few times, if that. I'll have you apologising over your accusations though, mark my words.--Matt Lewis (talk) 00:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand. The threat I was referring to is this: "You just called me a liar - do it again I'll take it to an admin." The rest of it can wait for the dispute resolution request. --Raijinili (talk) 00:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well you did do it again on your talk page: you straight called me a liar this time. I am looking for the right channel - it may not be dispute, I'll have to see what's on offer. I simply came in here to help Wikipedia - it's what I do most days of my life. Why don't you have a look? It's like you've made an Agatha Christie novel out of a simple request to look at a redirect.--Matt Lewis (talk) 00:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep We should not use red links as discouragement. --Raijinili (talk) 04:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Red links being re-made would be a finite matter, and could be simply addressed once they have been created. It's a process Wikipedia is clearly to lazy to go through! --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand me. The purpose of red links is to either tell people that they won't find an article there so that they don't click on it, or to encourage people to make the article themselves. Forcing people to learn how to spell by using Wikipedia conveniences such as red links, rather than having users tell them that they're misspelling words, is not something which should ever be a priority. Spelling is just not on the same level of importance as helping people find OTHER information, such as information on ad hominem.--Raijinili (talk) 19:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggested a "Did you mean?" page - and I did so at the very beginning (in the Project Talk page too). So there is actually no need for any red link. The point is that reading the main article dosn't correct the spelling in people's minds. And when people first encounter a page that explains their error, they are less likely to keep using their misspelling repeatedly. Suggesting users ought to inform people of their misspellings is simply impractical on lots of levels - and it's plain rude for a start. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * A "Did you mean?" page is, once again, causing inconvenience for the purpose of teaching people how to spell. The reader's spelling is not a priority for Wikipedia. An editor's spelling should be corrected when possible, preferably by a neutral party if on a talk page, but not by making it slightly harder for the readers to get to the page they want. Your logic is that informing people of their spelling is rude, but if ad hominen had a "Did you mean" page, the editor linking to it unintentionally would likely not click on that link anyway, and someone would still have to point out to that editor that the page they linked to is a misspelling soft redirect. --Raijinili (talk) 22:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Redirect for common typos and misspellings are routine and accepted as useful within the project.  This redirect could plausibly be considered either (since a number of people do misspelly this phrase and others slip one finger to the left when typing).  While we should not be encouraging the creation of redirects for every possible redirect, once they are created it's better to leave them alone.  The theoretical objections raised above about "reinforcing the mistake" are insufficient to justify making life harder for our readers and editors.  Rossami (talk) 13:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Reinforcing the mistake is not "theoretical" - it happened to me. A live link makes it look like the word is correct. when something is wrong, it's wrong.--Matt Lewis (talk) 14:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You have already made your opinion clear in your comments above. New arguments or evidence might make me change my mind but repeating the same arguments to each person who responds in the thread won't.  We have made many thousands of these redirects over the years and found that they are far more helpful than harmful to our readers.  There is nothing particularly special about this redirect that would justify an exception to accepted practice.  Nor does anything in this thread convince me that we should change the accepted practice.  Rossami (talk) 18:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, "We" the Lord Justice, has spoken! When you call someone's related experience "theoretical" you can expect to get an answer back, pal - so don't be so bloody arrogant. If I think it is wrong to use incorrect spelling in this way (and I do), it is entirely my right to do so. If you don't agree then fair enough - but don't call my experiences "theoretical" and expect to get the last word! I've already accepted the verdict, but some people in here seem to think they are in Crown Court! I feel like I've just had a nosey lawyer followed by a snooty justice comment at the end of a trial! Is this place a training ground for the legal profession or something? I brought "ad hominen" here in good faith, and if you can't at very least see my point behind live-linking misspellings, you are ignorant indeed. Jesus.--Matt Lewis (talk) 20:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'

Civility noticeboard → Wikiquette alerts
The result of the debate was create. This is the first time I've ever seen anything like this, but whatever.  bibliomaniac 1  5  23:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

This page was originally a separate noticeboard deleted in 2006 at MfD. Given that the primary purpose of Wikiquette alerts is to handle matter relating to civility, I'd like to suggest this redirect be created as an alternate way to refer to the page and its purpose, without using a wikilink mask.  MBisanz  talk 17:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Create(?) - seems sensible enough (hey, WP:BOLD?), with the added bonus of masking the uncivil (if comical) delete log. Ian ¹³  /t  17:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Create: sounds like a good idea, and there are almost no archived redlinks to it likely to cause confusion. I don't understand what Ian13 means by masking the delete log though since deletion logs are still visible for recreated articles. Olaf Davis | Talk 19:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Create - Sure, why not? Tiptoety  talk 20:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Why not? Are you serious?  Civ N got deleted.  It was a bad idea that was used badly.  To put in a redirect is only to admit that this beast is the functional equivalent and to invite people like me, who think that it's also a bad idea badly used, to say so.  Why not redirect WP:PAIN there, too?  Geogre (talk) 21:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Just create it because it makes sense and so no one has to look at this keep' - Great idea, even though you could've went bold and make it without going through this. Pie is good   (Apple is the best)  20:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'

Public transport crashes → List of United Kingdom disasters by death toll
The result of the debate was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 08:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Not a valid redirect Edward (talk) 13:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete Public transport crashes can occur anywhere; not just the UK. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  17:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete - They have very little to do with each, along with the fact that public transportation crashes do not just happen in the United Kingdom. Tiptoety  talk 17:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:GANG → Tag team
The result of the debate was keep. This RFD was difficult to sort through because many of the rationales referred to the actual essay Tag team instead of the shortcut. Pushing aside these comments, the main dispute hinges on whether the shortcut is "inherently offensive," as Olaf Davis states. As such, referring to a group of users attempting to game the system and push a POV (the subject of the essay in question), not a collaboration or a group of users trying to improve the status of an article, as a gang fits the main definition of Tag team. Although redirecting it to WP:CABAL was an idea, there was not enough of a consensus to back it up. In the future, this shortcut should be bundled with an MFD for Tag team, should an MFD reoccur, which by the looks of the first MFD seems very likely.  bibliomaniac 1  5  22:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Clearly inappropriate target. One could make a case for WP:CABAL. &mdash; Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * How is this clearly inappropriate? "two or more editors work[ing] in concert in a disruptive way" sounds like a description of people 'ganging up' to me. Olaf Davis | Talk 15:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: "Two or more" is a "criminal organization?"  Wow!  I would regard two or more as cooperation, and alleging that every two or three people who disagree with you are disruptive is fantastically insulting.  No.  We do not need to encourage people to write personal essays about their experiences in name space, and we especially do not wish to perpetuate that embattled, nasty spirit in redirects.  This is an attempt at antagonizing.  Utgard Loki (talk) 17:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Your referring to 'criminal organisations' surprised me at first: I'd been thinking of gang as in 'ganging up' and not as in criminal gangs (I suspect this may have to do with dialectic differences: the article gang notes that the word's usage for non-criminal groups is more common in England than elsewhere). With this in mind Arthur's remark suddenly makes sense, and I wouldn't oppose the deletion. Olaf Davis | Talk 18:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Martinphi's comment below has convinced me that my original instinct was right: there's nothing wrong with referring to 'tag-team' editing as 'gang editing' for the reasons he gives, so Keep. Whether WP:Tag team is appropriate at all, which Arthur seems to believe it's not, is a matter to be brought up at MfD and not here. Olaf Davis | Talk 18:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. "Gang editing" is a used phrase, and refers to what the essay talks about- and happens from all sides of issues. While gang editing exists, I haven't heard the term used for the cabal, though I may just not have been around that.  Anyway, there was no reason given for deletion.  If a good reason exists, then we should hear of it. A "Gang" is 1. "An association of criminals" and 2. "An informal body of friends" and 3. "An organized group of workmen."  So it applies well and don't assume only one of the meanings is the one meant, as with Utgard Loki above.  Further, even thinking of it as criminal is ok, as "criminal" on WP is against policy and the spirit of the community, which this type of editing definitely is.  —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 18:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Cite for "Gang editing" being used.  No comment on whether the essay should be deleted (as I think it should) or userfied, as acting on it is almost certainly contrary to the WP:PILLARS.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 20:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - Violates WP:NPA to start with - using that link to identify another editor is insulting at the least, and implies they are marauding about the encyclopedia smashing articles and threatening the well-being of others. Unfortunately, as I note here, the description of "tag-teaming" used in this essay can just as easily be applied to long-time, well-respected, good-faith editors who are in disagreement on a particular article. The shortcut is pejorative and is clearly intended to be so.  Let's not go down this road.  Risker (talk) 19:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Additional point to above: The word "gang" or phrase "gang editing" is never used in the essay.  Risker (talk) 01:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * One should never do that: one should refer to an article as the victim of gang editing, not an editor as a gang editor- which wouldn't make sense anyway. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 19:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * One shouldn't, but that is exactly what will happen. People will get a notice on their talk page referring them to WP:GANG or telling them that they are editing like WP:GANG. One needs to think about what will happen, not just what should happen.  Risker (talk) 19:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * SPADE is misused as well, as is WP:PEACOCK, WP:DICK, WP:DUCK, WP:POT WP:KETTLE And you are lynching Negroes, WP:MAJORDICK etc.  This doesn't mean they're bad, just that uncivil editors are going to find a way.  The important thing is 1) the shortcut correctly describes the behavior, and 2) the essay says not to do it, and what it is.  What I'm saying is, yeah, people might use it in an uncivil manner, but that is another matter. —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 20:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, it does not describe the behaviour. WP:GANG is an inappropriate shortcut for an essay in Wikipedia space. I have never seen some of those used, in particular And you are lynching Negroes and WP:MAJORDICK, and I would point out the former is actually an article and is neither a redirect, a shortcut nor something in Wikipedia space. WP:PEACOCK relates to content, not contributor. Of the rest, not one of those shortcuts implies violence or mayhem on the part of the editor being tagged.  Risker (talk) 20:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * But gang editing is violence and mayhem to the wiki space. It's a matter of the content of the essay, not the redirect.  But they are subject to the same abuse: "Don't be a gamer/peacock/dick, and "Please don't lynch everyone," "you can get with it or fuck off, with this last having the added appeal of plausible deniability when accused of incivility. —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 20:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:POVPUSH Another —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 21:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

<---(unindent) Sorry Martin, but I do not believe that there is any evidence that "gang editing" is in any way an accepted term at Wikipiedia. And exactly how do people writing on a computer keyboard inflict violence? By hitting the keys extra hard? Really now. Risker (talk) 21:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * As explained above. Also, you could read the essay for an answer to that. But it is not that I have to prove it is an acceptable term.  It is that you have to prove it isn't: WP is not here to be a censor, and if the term applies, as the definitions above make clear it does, then there is no reason not to use it.  I do not believe that the potential for incivility is a good reason to delete it, any more than it is a good reason to delete the above examples.  Which is why I gave the above examples. It seems fine according to WP:REDIRECT, especiall number 5 . However, it is not an intrinsically insulting or negative redirect, thus does not meet that standard. —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 22:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep I'm not seeing it. When I think gang I think group. Violent gangs do come to mind as well, but so do a lot of things. -- Ned Scott 01:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If the people to whom it is directed are offended, then why keep it? It's just a redirect.  Redirects are cheap.  Most people are saying, "I think it might mean 'ganging up'" -- well, delete this, then, and institute "GANGINGUP."  This is weird thinking.  Geogre (talk) 14:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not just a question of whether people are offended - we have to decide whether it's inherrently offensive. If people started getting offended by the shortcut RS we wouldn't change it to the more unwieldy RESSOUR; we'd tell them not to be silly (I know that's a ridiculous example, but my point is 'people are offended' does not necessarily mean we should change it). I'm not sure what you mean by 'redirects are cheap' - I've normally seen that used to justify keeping redirects that might not be much use since it doesn't harm us much to have spare ones sitting around. What do you mean by it here? Olaf Davis | Talk 20:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * At a guess, if the redirect is not good enough, it's no trouble to add a better one. 217.36.107.9 (talk) 08:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is against the spirit of consensus building and collaborative editing. The current discussion about GANG and "tag-teaming" seems to be implying that consensus building and collaborative editing is a bad thing. But the whole point of Wikipedia is that it is a collaborative project. Alun (talk) 10:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This seems to me like an argument for deleting WP:Tag team, rather than for deleting the redirect given that WP:Tag team exists. Olaf Davis | Talk 11:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I am considering putting the essay Tag team up for deletion. Alun (talk) 11:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - the essay might be inappropriate, however, that shouldn't be up for discussion here given that the redirect is fine. You say "tag-teaming", we say "ganging up", let's call the whole thing off.  217.36.107.9 (talk) 13:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. Thinking about it, it could map to either tag team or cabals.  Perhaps it should be a disambiguative shortcut?  &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * point to WP:Cabals Shortcuts exist as navigational aids, and the whole point that the shortcut is supposed to be easier to remember than the full page name. Since in English a "tag team" generally refers to a wrestling duo, while "gang" and "cabal" both refer to larger groups, it makes the more sense for WP:GANG to point to WP:Cabals. Yilloslime (t) 19:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'

Gratuitous → Gratis versus Libre
The result of the debate was linked to Wiktionary. At least two editors were confused with the word so I think it was better to redirect it to its definition. CrispMuncher's concerns are also addressed by Rossami. Lenticel ( talk ) 23:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

"Gratuitous" (unnecessary) appears to be confused with "Gratis" ("free") .CrispMuncher (talk) 15:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete - there's no such thing as 'free as in insult'"! Interestingly it originally went to free and was changed, suggesting two editors made the same mistake. Olaf Davis | Talk 18:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - I've seen a few editors who might be happy with this one! Perhaps it's an ironically subtle way of criticising WP like WP:CIV.--Matt Lewis (talk) 20:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Retarget to the wiktionary entry(I forget how to link to wiktionary. Pie is good   (Apple is the best)  20:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That would seem to violate WP:CROSS which although not policy does have a certain amount of popular support. Consider it from the sheer number of potantial Wiktionary redirects: was is special about "gratuitious" that means it should have a redirect over any other dictionary term? CrispMuncher (talk) 10:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Soft redirect to Wiktionary using the wi template. To CrispMuncher's comment, 1) WP:CROSS does not have consensual support as a prohibition on cross-namespace redirects of any type - the page is a discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of such cross-namespace redirects. 2) Soft-redirects to our sister projects explicitly do not violate WP:CROSS.  Our sister projects are not "namespaces" - they are completely separate projects.  Soft-redirects to our sister projects are both common and accepted.  While we would never encourage the creation of a soft-redirect for every conceivable dictionary definition, once a page has been created it's usually better to leave the redirect in place.  Rossami (talk) 14:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)