Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 September 19

September 19
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 19, 2012

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Aashay's E-Z Car Wash



 * 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 Speedy delete. Tikiwont (talk) 09:40, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


 * → Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Madhani Labor Services Inc. (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

See Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Madhani Labor Services Inc. and editor's other contribs.

This appears to be not only commercial spam of a non-notable company, but it's a teenage kid's at that. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Defer The target page is currently at MFD, if it is deleted then the redirect can be speedily deleted per WP:CSD. If the MfD results in a different course of action then the redirect can be separately evaluated without wasting effort. Thryduulf (talk) 21:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No Action Wait for the MFD to finish, then depending on the result, G8 speedy delete this, or re-nominate this. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 19:50, 20 September 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.

Wikipedia:Operation SS



 * 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 as unfortunate enough with the context still traceable from the edit summaries. Also (but without prejudice) the alternative created and tagged within here. Tikiwont (talk) 17:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * → User:Rcsprinter123/Station symbols (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * → User:Rcsprinter123/Station symbols (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Aside from the question of "Does this cause offence?" raised on the creator's page.There is also a question of "does this redirect need to exist?" the page it redirects to has only ever been edited by the User who created it, and it exists solely for the use of that editor so there appears to be no need for the redirect from Wikipedia namespace. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 18:27, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. Delete please. And salt it. Drmies (talk) 18:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't see any reason why this shouldn't be renamed to "Wikipedia:Station Symbols Operation" (or any other sensible redirect pleasing to the editor concerned) to avoid unnecessary upset. (And then salt the original, not that it seems likely to be recreated.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That's fine with me; it boils down to the same thing. Drmies (talk) 19:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You can't rename a redirect like you can a content page. You'd just be turning it into a double redirect which a bot would fix. Station Symbols Operation seems like a good idea for a redirect tough. I'll go ahad and create it. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Great so ignoring the fact that this wasn't about just about the offensiveness of the redirect, but whether a redirect was useful at all, you've now created another redirect for the use of this single editor who has said he's happy for the redirect to be deleted as long as the impact on the edit summaries is taken into account. The new redirect is actually longer than typing in the original page name instead. I've added your redirect to the discussion to see what the final consensus is. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 08:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Oops, bring on the trouts. In my defense I forget that this wasn't just about the offensiveness, and I'm tired, which is probably why I forgot. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 09:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with it being removed, but what about the thousands of edit summaries it is linked in? Somebody looking at the history of a rail station now would only see a red link and think this is an amateur project, when in fact it is co-ordinated by me and some other people help. The redirect should stay, lest some oversighter wants to go round thousands of edits changing the summaries to the right link.  Rcsprinter  (lecture)  @ 20:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC) I don't see the Edit Summary argument as holding much water there must be tens if not hundreds of thousands of summaries that already contain redlinks for one reason or other and it's not a problem that a few more would be created by this, and correction would not require oversight it is a simple matter of an automated blank edit with a corrective edit summary - The user who created this redirect is a bot operator so should be able to achieve this with little difficulty. Secondly I still don't see any argument as to why this redirect exists in project space. If the page was within Wikiproject trains then a WP:TWP/?? shortcut might be helpful but as a user has decided to carry out this task on his own then there's no need for it to be in project space - and indeed if he had shortened his own page name down to SS it would have had the same number of characters as the projectspace shortcut he created in the first place. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 14:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not a real good reason--I doubt that anyone would start thinking that. It's more likely that someone who looks at it goes 'who in the hell came up with that name'. Drmies (talk) 21:22, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * keep. I'm not seeing any reason to break the links in the edit summaries. Anyone wondering about what "operation SS" means will follow the link and find it entirely irrelevant to paramilitary organisations and their philosophies. The number of people who will find the mere mention of a term such as "Operation SS" in the context of 1940s Germany is going to be small, out of context it is going to be even smaller. Note this is people who find the words offensive, not those who would find something promoting a fascist ideology using those words offensive. Thryduulf (talk) 21:35, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You're kidding. I really don't care about your guess about the number who might find this offensive--one is enough here. The words are offensive, especially since someone with more trains than brains put "operation" in front of it. Operation Barbarossa, Operation Weserübung, Operation SS... I really wonder what prompts someone to come up with a redirect like that; the more I think about it the stranger it becomes. "Operation" when followed by a name invariable points to military action, and SS points to SS, which is so essentially Schutzstaffel that it's the primary redirect. So, who thinks that "SS" means something to do with the Nazis? Wikipedia, apparently. BTW, not fascist, nazist. Drmies (talk) 22:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Drmies, are you OK? I really cannot work out what you are trying to say there. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:20, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Please withdraw the personal attacks in your above comment, for example "someone with more trains than brains" is completely unacceptable. Secondly, I am not kidding. You appear to be assuming that your perceptions are universal, but they are not. Please see WP:AGF, WP:RNEUTRAL and WP:NOTCENSORED before throwing around your accusations that this must have been deliberately created to offend and that just because you personally find something offensive that Wikipedia must change to accommodate your views. Just because "SS" on its own redirects to one article, it does not mean that any use of the letters "SS" must relate to that topic (see SS (disambiguation), .ss, SS18, SS Admiral, etc. for example). Further "operation" when followed by a name does not invariably point to military action, e.g. Operation Trident (Metropolitan Police), Operation: Jet Fusion, Operation AntiSec, Operation Angel, Operation Prime Time. At least in British English it is also not infrequently used to give informal and/or small scale projects humorously over-the-top grand names, although by their very nature these are not encyclopaedic subjects and so don't get Wikipedia articles. Finally for this comment, consider that the redirect has been used in edit summaries for over a year (it was created in August 2011) and as far as I can find this is the first time that there has been any comment about offensiveness - if your views were truly universally held there would have been complaints and discussions long before this. Thryduulf (talk) 23:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn. I thought it was humorously over the top; my mistake. I guess it's a different world now; back in the day it was not OK to play around with Nazi acronyms. That this hasn't come up before is immaterial; for the record, I'd like to know how comfortable you would be with an "Operation SS" userbox on your user page that links to the project. And you don't have to point me to the dab page: I see you don't deny my point that the primary meaning of SS is Schutzstaffel, and my list of "Operations" can be extended a lot more easily than yours. Demiurge, thanks for asking--I'm fine. If you can't figure out what I'm trying to say, I'm sure there's an English grammar near you, or you could ask at Reference desk/Language. My apologies if my note was too complicated. Drmies (talk) 00:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If ,per Drmies's standard, one person finding this offensive is enough to delete this, then by that standard, anything and everything should be deleted because someone somewhere finds if offensive. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 06:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That a list of things called "Operation ..." that are military operations is longer than a list of such things that are other sorts of operation is irrelevant, your point was that they are "invariably" military, I was merely demonstrating this to be false. "SS" is an acronym that was notably used by the Nazis during WWII, that does not mean that every use of the acronym relates to them; and even when it does relate to that organisation such references are not automatically offensive. As for the userbox, yes I would be happy to have an "Operation SS" box on my userpage if it linked to the project page - without a link it would be meaningless and thus pointless; with or without a link it would not be offensive (this is theoretically speaking as I don't use userboxes related to specific tasks/improvement drives, which is what this basically is (see User:Thryduulf/Boxen)). Thryduulf (talk) 00:43, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 *  Keep  SS happens to be the abbreviation of the Nazi Schutzstaffel. So what? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 20:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Besides WP:SS has been a shortcut since 2004, should we delete that too? What about WP:NG? It could abbreviate "Nazi Germany" What about WP:CR? It could abbreviate Communist Russia. WP:AH could abbreviate Adolf Hitler. WP:JS could abbreviate Josiah Stalin. Two letter abbreviations can abbreviate lots of different things, some of them offensive. That's not a good reason to delete them. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment SS is commonly used but not NG,AH(We redirect SS to Schutzstaffel but not others) and please remove Communist Russia from above, it's not fascist.221.203.139.100 (talk) 13:50, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Why remove Communist Russia? It like Nazi Germany was a tyranny based on a discredited ideology that killed millions of people. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 13:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete There may be a WP:SS and also other things called operation but putting the two together is most unfortunate. That this is done through ignorance rather than malice does not make it any less offensive. WWII may seem a long time ago to a young person but there are many people alive today who survived those horrors, as well as their descendants and many other people who do have a sense of history. That phrase is bound to evoke images of the double lightning flash insignia and death's head badge of that most evil of organisations for a great many. I am disappointed that the creator of this does not have the decency to accept their mistake and clean this mess up.--Charles (talk) 10:35, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Charles's argument convinced me. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 10:48, 22 September 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.

Charles III of the United Kingdom



 * 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,  at least for now. Tikiwont (talk) 17:35, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * → Charles, Prince of Wales (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

WP:CRYSTAL ibicdlcod (talk) 13:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. If this were the title of the article about Charles, then yes it would need to be renamed per the guideline you cite. However, this is a redirect not an article, and so what matters is whether this is a useful search term. This has existed, uncontroversially, since 2009 and has received between 15 and 40 hits in each of June, July and August; both of which show that this is a useful search term. Further, we don't want a duplicate article at this title, and the redirect is doing a good job of discouraging this. Possibly we might want to refine the target to Charles, Prince of Wales, which is where the issue of his future regnal title (should his mother predecease him) is discussed. I'm not certain about that as there is little context for anyone arriving at that point on the page. I've got no feel for whether most people using this are likely looking for the biography as a whole or the issue of regnal titles specifically. Thryduulf (talk) 18:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment If Charles predecease his mother he will not be known as this and in future Charles III might be a different King and then comes Link rot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.22.21.3 (talk) 13:31, 23 September 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.