Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 May 17

May 17
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 17, 2012

Wikipedia:POLICYPRICK



 * 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 WP:SNOW delete, even creator is ok with deletion. Dreadstar ☥   03:25, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


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

I'm sure it was in the best intentions, but I think the name POLICYPRICK is unnecessarily inflammatory and isn't likely an oft used terms. To allow users to easily link it this way seem unnecessarily combative and incivil. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;   &copy;  23:26, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Calling someone a policy prick falls under WP:DICK, and isn't the sort of thing we should be encouraging with redirects. Note that I am not saying that  is a dick for creating it, I have no reason to believe it wasn't done with good intentions in mind. --kelapstick(bainuu) 23:36, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * (speedy) Delete. I don't see how this could be used in a way that doesn't violate WP:CIVIL and/or WP:NPA - indeed it's a borderline G10 speedy candidate (I'm not certain enough to delete it myself, but certainly wouldn't object to someone else doing so). It's only about a day old, and has no uses, just a link in the shortcut box on the target and a mention at user talk:Drmies (the other links are due to this nomination), so deleting it wont break anything. Thryduulf (talk) 23:38, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I created this on a lark.  It may be inconsistent with the current Wikipedia spirit, but it is not so historically, see WP:MAJORDICK and the WP:DICK mentioned above etc.  It has potential for abuse, but could be used for proper purposes as well.  I'm not sure why it would be deleted and those others kept.  And here's how to use it in a good way: "I'm not going to try and argue the point per WP:POLICYPRICK."   Be— —Critical  23:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * A valid point, however I would predict it being abused (i.e. calling people a policy prick) more than it being used in self-deprecation humour. If you wanted to refer to yourself as a policy prick I would recommend using a pipelink such as WP:POLICYPRICK, or intentionally redlinking the redirect, which sometimes can have more of an effect than the redirect. --kelapstick(bainuu) 00:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I don't really have a problem with this being deleted, I just thought it was fun (It does have high potential for abuse.  Be— —Critical  00:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I hated to bring it here but had to B, it isn't personal. I'm still a little leary of your other one as well, but mulling it over.  I appreciate your open minded attitude about the concerns here.   Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  00:35, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about it, no hard feelings at all. Maybe I shouldn't have made it to begin with ( Be— —Critical  02:16, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - I see the WP:DICK argument, but I think there's a difference here. This goes beyond the umbrella assertion DICK represents, which is using common sense to determine what policy would prescribe in any given situation, and if you don't, you're a DICK. This redirect calls anyone who engages in a particular practice a PRICK. The special treatment of lawyering is unwarranted and I think counterproductive, especially if it spawns other similar redirects to other policies. It should go.  Equazcion  ( talk )  00:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What I meant was the person citing WP:POLICYPRICK is the one being a dick, and that we shouldn't keep redirects that making being a dick easier. --kelapstick(bainuu) 02:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, creator is okay with deletion as well.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 01:19, 18 May 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.

Blindu eusebiu



 * 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 defer to AfD. If the target is deleted (as presently seems likely), then this redirect can be deleted per WP:CSD. If the article is kept, then the redirect can be renominated without prejudice if desired. Thryduulf (talk) 19:10, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * → Eusebiu Blindu (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Improbable redirect to an article currently at AfD, created by SPA User:Stopdeletingarticles, ... bobrayner (talk) 15:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Suggest deferral for now. The AFD is going strongly delete, and if the target goes, this can then me be simply G8 CSDed.  The AFD is likely to be completed well before this RFD would be completed anyway.  - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:22, 17 May 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.

Graham Pierce



 * 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. — ξ xplicit  23:08, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * → Filterset.G (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

1. non notable person 2. redir creates need for superfluous hatnote 3. autobio redir Widefox (talk) 08:58, 17 May 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.

Super Tafe



 * 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. — ξ xplicit  23:08, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * → Edith Cowan University (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * → Edith Cowan University (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

A double nomination. The term appears to be a derogatory characterization of particular universities in Australia — that they are only 'super TAFE' institutions. The pages have vacillated between various universities, and there are no mainspace interlinks; I cannot imagine any way to keep them. In my view, borderline CSD, but I thought I'd offer them here. NTox · talk 05:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete and replace. I agree that redirecting this to any specific university is not appropriate, and they should not remain in their current form. However, it seems that "super TAFE" is a concept (or at least a term) that has some notability in Australia (often >100 hits/month) and as such it would benefit us to have something at this title. That could be an article, a redirect to content elsewhere (Tertiary education in Australia doesn't have appropriate content currently but it would seem to naturally fit) or a soft-redirect to Wiktionary (if there isn't more than a definition that can be given), I'm not sure which would be best. In any case the page history is not valuable or desirable; if a redirect or soft redirect is the preferred option then I would recommend salting. I'll leave a note about this RfD at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Education in Australia. Thryduulf (talk) 13:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I have now created a definition at super TAFE (as that is the most common capitalisation). I stand by my above comment that there ought to be something at this title. Thryduulf (talk) 12:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a hoax and a nuisance redirect. The Term Super TAFE is a derogatory Australian colloquialism used against many Australian Universities comparing them to technical institutes and training providers, you can see it used against several Australian Universities here:http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=super+tafe Princesstachana (talk) 03:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * (The comment above was moved into this pre-existing discussion from a duplicate nomination made on 21 May). Rossami (talk) 03:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * +1 to what Princesstachana said. This shouldn't be controversial, so I'd suggest this discussion be closed speedily. &tilde;danjel [ talk &#124; contribs ] 10:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - although derogatory it is a common Australian colloquialism that people use to refer to the institution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.145.51 (talk) 15:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - The terminology is a common descriptive term for ECU, in fact, probably used more so in daily language between people over the correct terminolgy. Consider acronyms, how they are stated more so than full words. The terminology 'Super Tafe' is valid and correct according to the foundations of the university, and what basis their operations are consistently regarded as. It is not derogatory, it is a factual term for the university. Any motion against the common language slang to represent ECU should be dismissed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.213.85 (talk) 15:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per Princesstachana. DarthVader (talk) 10:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep It is a very common term for ECU, used in everyday communication, even by people who study there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.149.76.201 (talk) 10:57, 11 June 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.

Vegetarian sausage



 * 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.  Rossami (talk) 22:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * → Vegetarian hot dog (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

I am rather concerned that if one types "Vegetarian sausage" into the box on the left, one gets redirected to "Vegetarian hot dog". I thought I had better take this to "Wikipedia: Redirects for discussion" because a sausage is not the same as a hot dog - a sausage is just a sausage, whereas a hot dog is a sausage inside a bread roll. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 08:16, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note formatting fixed by Thryduulf (talk) 13:34, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Sausage and tag with and . This is, predictably, a very well used redirect and so readers should be directed to where we have content, although the current target does contain relevant material that could be merged (I'll add a see-also link to the section at Sausage. Thryduulf (talk) 13:41, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Sausage per Thryduulf .-- Lenticel ( talk ) 01:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 'I agree with the last suggestion. Vegetarian sausage still redirects to "Vegetarian hot dog" - I am not happy about that, but I shall be a lot happier if the last suggestion is adopted. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 10:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It is usual for the redirect to remain unchanged until the discussion is closed, which is normally at least 7 days after it was nominated. Thryduulf (talk) 19:20, 22 May 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.

Exobrain



 * 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 Externalism, as the most appropriate target at this time. — ξ xplicit  23:08, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * → The Extended Mind (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

deletion, no attempt has been made to establish what Exobrain is, or how it connects with the article to which it redirects. This redirect does not appear to be helpful in any way. Argey (talk) 04:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting. According to Google, "exobrain" is 1) some sort of pre-released information management tool, 2) an apparently minor company and 3) a neologism for the idea that your "mind" is no longer limited to the knowledge currently in your head but can be thought of as expanded by those real-time information assets at your disposal, , ,  and .  The current target is a book about that third idea.  The book does not appear to use the neologism (and our article certainly doesn't but it is definitely talking about the same concept.  It is related to memex and externalism and to a lesser degree to situated cognition. The redirect to the book is clearly less than ideal.  I could see a case for expanding the redirect into its own article.  I could also see a case for retargetting - "externalism" seems the least bad choice so far but maybe there's a better target.  I do not see a justification to delete the redirect from history, however.  Rossami (talk) 16:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Rossami is quite correct. While it would be nice to have a full article on the exobrain concept as distinguished from a memex and whatever, we obviously do not have one, and until we do, a redirect to the closest article is the best approach. --Gwern (contribs) 18:55 17 May 2012 (GMT)
 * 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.