Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 July 1

July 1
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 1, 2012

WP:DNFTT



 * 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 keep. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 13:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Not entirely sure how to move an already started discussion, so I'm crosslisting it here. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:DNFTT -- Avanu (talk) 14:34, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * → Deny recognition (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * → Wikipedia:Deny recognition (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Rationale: ''This page redirects to a reasonable essay on deescalating conflict, however, this abbreviation is typically used in chat to attack the other editor by blaming them for escalating a conflict. This seems to be at odds with our WP:Civility pillar and our WP:No personal attacks policy. Rather than encouraging this use through a shortcut that facilitates it, I recommend its deletion. Avanu (talk) 17:20, 1 July 2012 (UTC)''
 * fixed formatting. Thryduulf (talk) 16:40, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep as is. These redirects have existed for a long while and are highly linked and visited, so deletion would not help anybody. Per WP:RNEUTRAL, redirects do not have to be neutral in themselves and just because a shortcut can be used in a non-neutral way doesn't mean it always is or that we must delete it. The only question is where they should point. At first glance, the target has not been stable - pointing at least to Civility, What is a troll? (since moved to meta) and Dealing with trolls as well as the current target. However, looking deeper it seems that the current target, Deny recognition (where Don't feed the trolls, the source of the acronym, points) is the stable title with only a couple of people trying to change that (recently user:LiteralKa is the most prominent). There was a short discussion at Wikipedia talk:Deny recognition which seems to agree that that page is the best place, and I can't find a reason to disagree with that. Thryduulf (talk) 16:40, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Original discussion from Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:DNFTT: Cunard (talk) 19:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep as is per Thryduulf. While marginally incivil (and only marginally), the cost of breaking the many links throughout the project and all across pagehistories is much too great.  Rossami (talk) 22:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. (although I'd prefer it to be a double redirect via Do not feed the trolls.  Or even better: What_is_a_troll%3F).  People feeding trolls are contributing to excalation of a conflict.  They *should* be told "do not feed the trolls".  Nowhere near enough evidence presented that this shortcut itself has caused problems.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm generally strongly supportive of maintaining a high standard of civility, and I don't find this uncivil. The essay they link to specifically deal with clearly bad-faith users, and unlike other redirects / templates with questionable names, I don't recall seeing this widely misused to attack contributors on the other side of a dispute. It's a succinct summary of an approach to dealing with vandals and trolls. wctaiwan (talk) 16:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:RNEUTRAL applies. But I don't think there's anything explicitly uncivil about the acronym&mdash;it can mean whatever you think it means. It depends on your point of view. Even if "WP:DFTT" goes away, I can still cut someone off and call them a douchebag troll. I agree with Nobody Ent: Shortcuts don't insult editors, editors insult editors. Braincricket (talk) 14:47, 10 July 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.

Criticism of the United States



 * 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 retarget to Criticism of American foreign policy. JohnCD (talk) 21:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * → Anti-Americanism (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

This redirect reflects a political attempt to describe all criticism of the United States as "anti-American" and is inherently non-neutral. While there are multiple different interpretations of "anti-American" listed at that article, all sources roughly agree that the term primarily refers to prejudicial hatred of the United States of America, and is also used in a non-neutral, political way to discredit criticism of the United States. (This is also consistent with the introduction at List of anti-ethnic and anti-national terms.) The article on anti-Americanism is primarily about the phenomenon of anti-American feelings, and does not directly address criticism of the United States.

I think an article should be created at Criticism of the United States which describes specific criticisms and critiques of the United States, both from internal and external parties. At that point, it may be worthwhile to merge Criticism of American foreign policy into Criticism of the United States if appropriate. Augurar (talk) 17:40, 1 July 2012 (UTC) Augurar (talk) 17:40, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: After some further thought, it might be better to create "Criticism of US government and policies", redirect "Criticism of the United States" there, and merge "Criticism of American foreign policy" into there. Augurar (talk) 18:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong delete per nominator as blatantly non-neutral. If someone wants to create an article on "Criticism of the United States", then please go ahead ... and in the meantime it might be OK to redirect this to Criticism of American foreign policy. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:47, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Criticism of American foreign policy as per BrownHairedGirl. Criticism can be constructive.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Retarget per BHG and SmokeyJoe. -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 05:38, 4 July 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.

Template:United States



 * 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 both this and Template:United States 2. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 19:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * → Template:United States political divisions (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

This redirect doesn't make sense to me. It is a huge leap for me to think that anyone who looks for a template about the United States would obviously be looking for a template to United States political divisions. I think it would make more sense for this to go to something else more general if we keep it at all. Kumioko (talk) 18:42, 15 June 2012 (UTC) 
 * Comment it makes some sense to me, since it makes the US primarily its top level political divisions, as the Articles of Confederation would have it. As for whether we should keep, retarget, or develop this, perhaps it could be redeveloped for the main topics of the US? 70.49.127.65 (talk) 03:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 17:22, 1 July 2012 (UTC)




 * Comment. As a normal editorial action, I've left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States about this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 17:22, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. Extraneous template redirects are a bad thing. If it is non-intuitive, disused, or too vague, it should go. I also recommend including in whatever outcome is achieved here for the original nominee, as they both share the same target. BigNate37(T) 08:25, 11 July 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.

Petara



 * 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. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 22:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * → Formula One Group (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Not mentioned in article, and unlikely to be added - see Talk:Formula One Group. Peter&#160;E.&#160;James (talk) 09:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC) 
 * Comment When I see Google the results are mostly for a yacht. Is there a viable target in that? D O N D E groovily   Talk to me  03:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The name seems to have been used for more than one yacht owned by Bernie Ecclestone - Wikipedia doesn't have information about any of them. Peter&#160;E.&#160;James (talk) 22:42, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 17:13, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete – The redirect makes no sense. There is no connection between the name of his yacht and an article about one of his business holdings.  S enator2029talk 04:23, 2 July 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.

12345



 * 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 disambiguate. I have started a disambiguation page, but it could do with work. Thryduulf (talk) 12:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * → Schenectady, New York (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Not mentioned in the target; presumably numerous possible meanings. – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 22:59, 11 June 2012 (UTC) 
 * 12345 is the zip code for Schenectady. Notable zip codes such as 90210 are commonly created as disambiguation pages.  It appears that a relatively new user tried to stub this page in the same manner.  He/she could only find the one meaning, though, so the page was quickly turned into a straight redirect.  It has been in that state since 2008.  I was able to find a few other examples of straight zip-code redirects - 90291, for example.  It does seem to be an uncommon practice, though.  Disambiguate if there are other notable uses of that 5 digit string.  Otherwise, I'm inclined to just leave it alone.  Rossami (talk) 23:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * While not currently specified, it's the code some idiot would have on his luggage, but it's ' the code to the shield that protects Druidia.' Dru of Id (talk) 07:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment with someone less than familiar with English, this is a viable search term for counting. (or for a child to use). 70.24.251.208 (talk) 05:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 16:47, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * 70.24.251.208 makes an interesting point, how about a DAB that lists it as the zip code, and the counting use? Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  18:11, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It is also the MPAA certificate number for 1947's Song of the Thin Man. Dru of Id (talk) 15:59, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "Numerous possible meanings" is actually a pretty good rationale for disambiguating instead of deleting. There could be a dab page that lists the postal code, counting/number and other possible uses. Jafeluv (talk) 10:40, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Disambiguate since there are numerous possible meanings Djflem (talk) 06:50, 5 August 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.

Jada Stevens
<div class="boilerplate mfd" style="background:#FFEEDD; margin-top:0.5em; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #888888;">


 * 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. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 16:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * → Snellville, Georgia (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Delete, not clear this person merits a redirect, and more importantly, the redirect imparts no useful infomation, there is a single (unsourced) sentence in the target page that reads "Adult Film Star Jada Stevens is from Snellville". Hairhorn (talk) 03:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator. If Jada Stevens is notable, then write an article on him; if he is not notable then the redirect is at best pointless, and worst it misleads readers. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:43, 2 July 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.