Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 November 16

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 List of fictional beverages#Alcoholic or intoxicating beverages. Malinaccier (talk) 04:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Victory Gin → Nineteen Eighty-Four (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Confusing redirect, which suggests that the article about Nineteen Eighty-Four actually contains information about "Victory Gin", however, there's none. In fact, I clicked on the link in the Freedom fries article, and received no information, which is very disappointing for a reader. The Evil IP address (talk) 23:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to List of fictional beverages#Alcoholic or intoxicating beverages. There are at least three passing mentions in the Nineteen Eighty-Four article, two of which at least are linked to gin but should probably point to the fictional beverages article if anywhere. Thryduulf (talk) 03:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds like a good idea to me. --The Evil IP address (talk) 15:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to List of fictional beverages#Alcoholic or intoxicating beverages - a fine solution. Bridgeplayer (talk) 18:49, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget as per Bridgeplayer and Thryduulf. I note Victory Gin was sold for a few years recently as an own brand gin by a supermarket franchise in the UK, I forget which (Spar or the Co-op), but with no particular reference to Nighteen-Eighty Four and I I haven't seen it for a few years and would fail WP:N if there were an article about it, I would guess. Si Trew (talk) 17:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Looking at Freedom Fries, the link was in the See Also section. I have removed it as irrelevant since it is not mentioned in the target article. I have also changed Roses of Muhammad from a simple redirect to Danish (pastry) to an {{R to section}}, and noted as such at the target. The others seem relevant but V. Gin was irrelevant, R. of M. was relevant but would be better to be more specific, I think. I also note that Danish (pastry) would be better as an article at Danish pastry but Ithis may be a US vs UK English issue which has been argued and agreed before (the redirect has an {{R from merge}}) so I shall not comment farther without looking into the background of that, and anyway it would be outside the remit of RfD.

I hope neither of my actions prejudices the RfD, since they seem tangential at the least. Si Trew (talk) 17:54, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 Wikipedia:PITCHFORKS. No consensus about the others as they were mostly not discussed, if anyone wants to renominate these I'd recommend not grouping ones pointing to different targets. Thryduulf (talk) 14:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:PITCHFORKS → Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

This was brought up repeatedly during the discussion about "Run to Mommy". Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 12:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; can I suggest also adding WP:Broken, WP:BEARPIT, WP:Gorillas consuming gerbils, WP:MEATGRINDER, WP:You can see Hell from here and WP:CESSPIT to this discussion, as the deletion arguments for them seem to be similar. For my own view; for whatever reason they were created the redirects appear to lack humour, being more related to disaffection or bitterness. I don't think they really serve a useful purpose, except as a minor talking point when each is created. It's a bad reflection on us if those community areas, even if humour was involved, are viewed in such ways. So as a radical idea; lets kill those pointless templates and consider this as a stepping stone to fixing some of the fundamental interaction problems within the community. --Errant ^(chat!) 12:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: WP:CESSPIT redirects to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, the others listed above all point to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. Thryduulf (talk) 15:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason why we can't speedy those redirects that aren't used anywhere in the first place? --Conti|✉ 12:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd think that even if inappropriate redirects are in use, it would be feasible to have a bot replace them. Gerardw (talk) 12:56, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They can't be speedy deleted, as speedy can only happen when nobody objects. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At the point of my writing, nobody objected. :) Though there are certainly enough reasons to speedy something even when people do object. --Conti|✉ 14:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel like speedying Gorillas, I wouldn't object. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per ErrantX Gerardw (talk) 12:56, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep on PITCHFORKS, Cesspit, Hell, Meatgrinder, Broken, delete for Gorillas, neutral on Bearpit. Reasoning: no strong opinion on Bearpit; Gorillas is illogical, as gorillas do not generally consume hamsters, and the purpose of the redirect is unclear. As for PITCHFORKS and its compatriots: it's satire, it's a fairly broadly broadly accepted viewpoint (especially PITCHFORKS), it's useful and instructive, and deleting these redirects will not change how the community areas are viewed nor solve disaffection and so will not address the issues raised by ErrantX as reasons for deletion. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In what way are these redirects useful and instructive, exactly? --Conti|✉ 14:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a fairly accurate depiction of the processes which they describe, they effectively provide a sense of these arenas in miniature, and are useful in reminding editors of this. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Look, I dislike the current RfA process as much as the next guy, but don't you think this kind of approach is bloody counterproductive? Throwing mud at it is not going to make RfA any prettier. --Conti|✉ 15:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not particularly. WT:RfA involves much more mud than a redirect, and I don't see how deleting said redirect will solve anything. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's about not making it any worse. :) --Conti|✉ 17:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yeah, but can you really argue the redirect makes things worse? I would submit that it's a symptom of the problem, not a cause. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete as per myself in the parent discussion. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep Christ sake, does anyone have a sense of humor anymore?--Guerillero | My Talk 15:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It may be whatever funny, it's still offending and gives a great room of action to trolls. Who the hell would need such humor? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Us, as a project. We shouldn't take ourselves too seriously in projectspace. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all. Thin-skinned political correctness is running amok through RfD this week, these things are harmless satire. Perhaps more effort should be going into addressing the actual behavior at these respective venues rather than whining about snarky shortcuts. Tarc (talk) 18:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead, address the actual behaviour. Why populate Wikipedia with useless redirects? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The counter-question ot that is why are your hackles raised over redirects you never knew existed? Some created 5 years ago, even. Tarc (talk) 19:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bits are cheap, Wikipedia is not paper, and some people find it useful; if you don't, it's fairly easy to ignore. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- light-hearted satire that pokes fun at the tone of one of Wikipedia's processes. Has this site become so stuffy and thin-skinned that it can't tolerate a bit of gentle self-mockery? The problems that redirects like this one, and the Run to Mommy one, poke fun at only get worse if nobody's allowed to point them out and people take themselves far too seriously. Reyk _YO! 19:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Doesn't seem particularly insulting or degrading, and is fairly accurate description of the way it works at times. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:04, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all They are attempts at humor at best, and serve none of the purposes listed at Wikipedia:Redirect. There are lots of websites like E.D. which have as their purpose humor and satire. That would be a better venue for humorous writings. Edison (talk) 20:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. This "Pitchforks" link to WP:ANI may well be derogatory, but I consider it more objectionable to link "Run to Mommy" to WP:WQA. I agree that other, wilder redirects such as "Gorillas consuming gerbils" and "You can see hell from here" take light-heartedness a little too far. It may be worth starting some sort of RfC on the subject of satirical redirects in project space, since single RfDs such as this one seem to be rather ill-equipped to address a concern with such widespread implications. SuperMarioMan 12:55, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Political commentary about a politicized little wikiworld that often needs to be commented upon. Like my momma says, "It's only the truth that hurts..." Carrite (talk) 06:33, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.