Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 February 4

February 4
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 4, 2012

Wikipedia:OTHERCRAPEXISTS

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 01:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC) should be deleted because its insulting to the work of others to call their articles crap. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST and WP:OTHERSTUFF can be used instead. A bot can change places that said othercrap to otherstuff to not mess up links, or even without a link you can tell what they mean when they post that. We need to eliminate though so people will stop using it.  D r e a m Focus  23:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * → Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * → Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * Comment: This was previously discussed in June 2008 and Aug 2010 and kept both times. Rossami (talk)
 * Keep- This attempt to dictate which words people can and cannot use appears to be motived by a desire to push an extreme inclusionist agenda in future discussions. I consider that kind of thing to be doubleplusungood. Previous XfDs along these lines (eg. Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Fancruft_(second_nomination), Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Delete_the_junk) have rightly been rejected. Reyk  YO!  23:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What? How does this help push "an extreme inclusionist agenda"?  They can still link to the same spot, just use the word "stuff" instead "crap".  This came about when a girl editing Wikipedia stated she felt that crap was a curse word, and politely asked Eagle247 to "Please don't swear".  I noticed he followed me here.   D r e a m Focus  00:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per above.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  23:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: the user who originally was offended by the word "crap" in this shortcut was also offended by the dead horse pictured in WP:STICK.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  01:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Girls think differently than guys do, and some people are more sensitive than others. We need to find a lot of female editors, show them that picture, and ask their opinions. That issue has nothing to do with this one here though.   D r e a m Focus  01:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I hate to break out the censorship argument, but that rationale is largly "Someone is offended, so it should go." Removed per Unscintillating below --v/r - TP 01:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Deleting the redirect will change nothing. Editors who want to call articles crap can still do WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS .  See: WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.--v/r - TP 00:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * How likely is that going to happen?  D r e a m Focus  01:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Useful, widely used redirect. Besides some articles actually are crap. And people will fake it by piping it as TParis points out. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The more I think about it, the sillier this nomination is. The nominator says we should delete it because the redirect allows people to be insulting about other people's articles. But consider: when used, it is used as a counterargument against people saying we ought to keep X because there exists some article Y and that X is just as crap as Y, therefore we ought to keep X. The person responding with OTHERCRAPEXISTS isn't necessarily agreeing with the contention that either X or Y is crap or that X is crappier than Y or vice versa. They may only be pointing out the crappiness of the argument while taking no position on the articles in question: that is the whole point of WP:ATA. We also have WP:OTHERCRAP, and the ATA page gives examples of when people !voting to delete use this argument: namely, that since we've deleted X, we should also delete Y. That's an "other crap no longer exists" argument. And other than those trying to make a point, nobody really gets too hung up on the word "crap". Nor should they. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * We have some silly and fruity shortcuts... because people remember them and they are funny. See, for instance, WP:NOFRIENDS, WP:ANISUCKSTHELIFEOUTOFYOU, WP:HAPPYPLACE, WP:BORING ("OMG, that's calling the article boring!"), WP:RUBBISH (same). Oh, wait, I just committed an OTHERCRAPEXISTS fallacy. Thank god WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS exists! —Tom Morris (talk) 12:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Consider Civility, one of the five pillars of Wikipedia, and then this particular redirect should be deleted to promote civility. Yes, some contributions are poorly done, but there are plenty of other mechanisms and procedures for asking for improvements without aspersions. --DThomsen8 (talk) 00:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, WP is not censored just because some editors find a word offensive no reason to stop others using it. Will not stop editors using the term as TParis points out. Mt  king  (edits)  01:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Allowing redirects like this to go undeleted is contrary to our civility policy, as well as contrary to our overall goal of building an encyclopedia.  When words are used so as to be offensive, the issue is not censorship.  Since editors often reference this essay while being seemingly unaware of what it says, it does not help to have an added layer of incivility to work through to get to the core of reason.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep again for the same reasons as were explained in the previous two debates. While the redirects are marginally incivil, we tolerate far more pejorative language in piped links.  Wikipedia is not bowlderized.  Deleting these redirects will not significantly affect the debate.  On the other hand, deleting these redirects will break a great many archived discussions, making it harder for future reader/editors to understand the context of the discussion.  And while a bot could be run to orphan all the currently-active links, that does nothing for the links buried in pagehistories across the project.  The costs of deleting this incivil redirect far outweigh the benefits of deleting it.  Rossami (talk) 02:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * We could solve that problem by instead of just deleting it, we replace it with a message asking people to use WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS instead, to be more civil. Thus the links would still bring you someplace, which would tell you where to correctly link to, and the reason why.   D r e a m Focus  10:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So you effectively want to change it from a hard-redirect to a soft-redirect? That proposal still leaves a redirect and will be unlikely to change behavior the way you intend.  Rossami (talk) 10:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't be a redirect. It would be a page that said that it was uncivil to use that, and ask them to instead use WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS instead. They could then click on the new link to get to where they were intended to go. Thus problem solved. People would stop using it, and no past links of it would be broken in a way people couldn't easily figure out where it once linked to.  D r e a m Focus  10:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * But it isn't uncivil. It's the word "crap". —Tom Morris (talk) 12:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Which is defined as 1a. usually vulgar: feces.  1b. usually vulgar : the act of defecating.  2. sometimes vulgar : nonsense, rubbish; Many do find the word vulgar and uncivil.  Why wouldn't you just use the word stuff instead?   D r e a m Focus  18:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Even given that there are articles which are equivalent to faeces, have probably been produced using a process broadly equivalent to the act of defecating, and are nonsense and rubbish, the fact that a word is defined in a particular way doesn't change whether it is offensive or not. And it really isn't very offensive unless you are hypersensitive. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:41, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose such a soft redirect, it makes the assumption that every time WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS has been used there is a civility issue, I can think of lots of cases where its use is neither uncivil or directed against a specific contributors work. Mt  king  (edits)  10:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * KeepI'm sure my daughter would not be upset with it (oh wait, that's not a guideline or policy based arguement). Isn't Wikipedia not censored? I don't see it as uncivil. Dougweller (talk) 16:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep the name cuts to the point, that arguing to include something because there are other things like it doesn't make sense if that other stuff is not also worthy of inclusion. If the other stuff is just stuff, that doesn't make the point, because of course we want stuff in Wikipedia. This is not the sort of argument that needs to be or should be censored. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep harsh, but the Wiki is not censored.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 00:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. I lean towards the more deletionist end of the spectrum, but I've always hated this shortcut. Yes, of course Wikipedia is 'not censored' - that's why we're discussing this redirect rather than just deleting it - but we shouldn't encourage people to be pointlessly incivil. That's what this redirect does, when WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a perfectly good alternative. For what it's worth, if it were up to me, I'd delete WP:DICK and WP:FUCK for the same reason: they all just make for a slightly more fractious editing environment for little benefit. Robofish (talk) 02:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. WP:NOTCENSORED, WP:DICK and WP:POINT all quite readily come to mind... Most definate WP:IDONTLIKEIT deletion nom and should be procedurally speedy kept as such. Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 04:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - If crap is offensive, then it is an extremely small minority, and WP is obviously not censored. Should we hold the entire site to that standard, a heck (bet some are offended at that too) of a lot of editors wouldn't be around. Furthermore, if there's any doubt that there is crap on Wikipedia, I invite editors to take a minute and look at the newest submissions to AfC. The redirect is justified, and entirely in bounds of our rules.  Nolelover   Talk · Contribs  18:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per Robofish. The other redirects work fine, no reason to offend people unnecessarily. (There are sufficient necessary reasons... :-) ) --GRuban (talk) 19:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep it's short, it's to the point, and it's been used many thousands of times over the last FIVE YEARS. If you don't like it, don't use it. Rklawton (talk) 01:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - putting these two long-standing redirects here for discussion deletion a second time is disruptive. These links have been in use for years, they've been discussed previously, these links are active in many places, and editors such as myself who are accustomed to using them are finding themselves unable to do so when they least expect it. Given the comments above, I move for a speedy keep - and slap the editor who nominated this redirect for deletion with a trout for disruption. Rklawton (talk) 01:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Can you imagine how many links would be rendered useless (and thus incomprehensible to newbies) by deletion?  WP:IAR is by itself a sufficient reason for keeping here.  Nyttend (talk) 02:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - This nomination is just plain silly, really. Anyone who's insulted by "crap" needs to get out in the world a bit more. On the Universal Scale of Obnoxiousness, "crap" barely even registers, even on the most sensitive settings. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep and snow close - I personally use the more neutral WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but I have no problem with this one, and I agree with BMK - if "crap" is found offensive, then the offendee has to have been more sheltered than I was (which is pretty hard to do!). - The Bushranger One ping only 08:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Oh crap. This will be kept until Wikipedia outgrows its puerile adolescent stage, which will be a while because it is only eleven years old. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep and create WP:FUCKINGCUNT to apply to the situation where editors misuse WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, not as a personal attack, but to describe the behaviour. No one has any reason to be offended by such terms.--Milowent • hasspoken  16:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. The nominator fails to understand the underlying idea: this redirect is supposed to be used against deletion rationale insulting the parent topic and keep rationales for inappropriate (forbidden) content. The ability to abuse the title doesn't mean the title should be deleted. Furthermore, there are numerous occurrences, which were reacted upon, so both redlinking and auto-replacing the occurrences would harm Wikipedia from the historical point of view. The proper way would to deprecate this would be bringing the redirects to the essay's talk page, and upon reaching consensus converting redirects to the softlinks with historical tag. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per Wikipedia is not censored and create WP:OHTHISREDIRECTSOUNDSABITMEAN to deal with any future nominations that are equally lacking in a valid deletion rationale. Pol430  talk to me 00:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:NOTCENSORED. "It's offensive" is not a rationale. A412  (Talk * C) 00:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Crap crap crap hell damn ass. OOOOOOH, I'm gonna tell the teacher on you! Seriously, if "crap" offends you you must be like six years old. Why the ARS radicals want to keep every single article but limit what the rest of us are allowed to say is beyond me. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 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 (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Draft Ron Paul Movement



 * 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 Procedural Close, non-RfD nomination. Lenticel  ( talk ) 06:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * → (links to redirect • [ history] •  )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ] DFS (talk) 04:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

This article has twice been nominated for deletion. It was recommended for improvement twice. It is still full of unsourced opinions, dubious statements and an incorrect use of the term "draft" when used in a political context. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_politics)

As shown in the article, A few people have gone on record saying that they would like Ron Paul to run for office. That does not equal a broad grassroots movement.

We are now well into the 2012 race and the article is still trying to make a point that just is not there.

The time to improve this article has passed.

Delete.

DFS (talk) 04:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I am confused by this nomination. First, there is no article at the exact title cited above.  The content appears to be at Draft Ron Paul movement (note the lower case m).  But that page is not (and from what I could tell of history, has never been) a redirect.  It is inappropriate to discuss here.  I believe this must be administratively closed and renominated to AfD.  Rossami (talk) 05:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oops. Thanks.  I had a feeling I was doing this wrong. DFS (talk) 06:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.