Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 September 6

September 6
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 6, 2008

Grace Slick and The Great Society - Conspicuous Only in its Absence → Conspicuous Only in its Absence
The result of the debate was G7, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC) The band name is not needed in the page title. I moved the page to "Conspicuous Only in its Absence". This redirect is not needed. michfan2123 (talk) 21:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'

WITCHHUNT → Requests for comment/User conduct
The result of the discussion was Converted to essay by   « l | Ψrom3th3ăn ™ | l »   (talk), No longer eligible for FD Shortcuts created as critiques of the target processes rather than to ease navigation. Muchness (talk) 11:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC) Adding. Jehochman Talk 15:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Also: HEADSMUSTROLL → Requests for arbitration Converted to Essay
 * Also: BANTHEWHOLELOTOFTHEM → Requests for arbitration - CSD


 * Strong Keep per WP:DRAMA: If they go then WP:DRAMA is at risk on the same principal. Per the "precedent", if you will call it that, set here and here where the consensus was the that humorous redirects are healthy and useful I stongly encourage that they be kept. I think the redirects show humor and do ease navigation. They were just made and people are more likly to remember the pages by the humuorous redirects. They are descriptive of the streotype, and to be honest I think wikipedia can always use more humor. I cant stop cacking myself at the first one. Futhermore the nomination states no valid reason per WP:RFD for them to be deleted. Reasons for keeping are the above plus point 5 of WP:RFD "Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful — this is not because the other person is a liar, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways."  « l | Ψrom3th3ăn ™ | l »   (talk) 11:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Per above. No reason to go about deleting every slightly humerous redirect. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  12:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Changing my opinion. After thinking about it once more, I say delete based on the points Suntag brought up. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  16:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: even if the intent is humorous, I'd argue that wording such as "heads must roll" and "witch hunt" may be interpreted as inflammatory and trivializing. These pages document good faith and frequently exhaustive attempts to resolve otherwise intractable disputes. Associating them, even humorously, with witch hunts or an "off with their heads" mentality seems to me to be unfair to the users active on those pages, and just strikes me as encouraging editors to dismiss out-of-hand valuable resources. However, I was unaware of the discussion surrounding the WP:DRAMA redirect, I'll have a look at that and review my take on this. --Muchness (talk) 13:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Re Comment I can assure you that they are not ment to be taken in a malicious way and they are in fact intended to be humor. I appreciate you taking the time to look at the WP:DRAMA conversation and also which to Note: Redirects are not required to be NPOV.  « l | Ψrom3th3ăn ™ | l »   (talk) 13:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete- They are not shortcuts listed on Requests for comment/User conduct, so keep as a shortcut doesn't apply. Their use should be evaluated for their value as a redirect only. In that regard, it is unlikely that anyone searching for Requests for comment/User conduct" will type in either WITCHHUNT or HEADSMUSTROLL. As for their joke aspect, Wikipeida is not a social site and its tools should not be converted into jokes. In regards to Civility, the redirects are judgmental in tone and express a personal opinion about "Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct" that belongs in an essay or elsewhere, not as part of a redirect tool. We're here to participate in a respectful and civil way and a redirect that disparages one of the project's processes does not work towards that participation goal. Suntag (talk) 15:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Now we see the violence inherent in the system! and BANTHEWHOLELOTOFTHEM probably deserve a look see as well. Suntag (talk) 15:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Not all shortcut have to be listed so you can "reevaluate" your analysis on the pretence that they are shortcuts. Look at WP:DRAMA for an example  « l | Ψrom3th3ăn ™ | l »   (talk) 03:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete These redirects assume bad faith, are not helpful for navigation and set a poor tone for our community. Jehochman Talk 15:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 *  And WP:DRAMA Doesnt?  « l | Ψrom3th3ăn ™ | l »   (talk) 03:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete under csd:r3 as an implausible misnomer if I've seen one (plus they're novel and obscure, to boot). They're useful only to their author in making and furthering his point, and, for what it's worth, parodies (which I believe is the actual intent here) are specifically advised against over at wp:point.    user:j    (aka justen)   16:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as CSD r3 (recently created redirect of a misnomer). Thanks for the laugh, but we don't need to keep it.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - I'm indifferent on the subject of humorous redirects in general. I suppose they're OK sometimes. But these ones come across as more of an insult. Reyk  YO!  21:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Prom3th3an created this redirect just after accusing me of being on a witchhunt at ArbCom (note WP:WITCHHUNT's original target was Requests for arbitration). It's nothing more than a result of childish petulance, designed to attack participants in ArbCom/RfCs, and should be deleted. - auburn pilot   talk  03:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. 


 * Delete - it is about blame, and when we require neutral POV, this hardly is inspiring that we can manage it. -- 15:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC) (Comment made after debate closed)