→Incitement of insurrection: collapsing |
AnonQuixote (talk | contribs) Last comment Tag: Reverted |
||
Line 127: | Line 127: | ||
::::{{u|El_C}}, It is an [[ad-hominem]] argument because it seeks to invalidate my argument by casting aspersions on my conduct rather than addressing the substance of my point. {{u|Tartan357}}, I politely request that you edit your comment to simply state your point and refrain from making accusations against me. For example: "The consensus of a BLP/N discussion was that it is acceptable to equate these terms per the dictionary definition." Then I think we can remove the rest of this "thread" as off-topic to the RfD discussion. [[User:AnonQuixote|AnonQuixote]] ([[User talk:AnonQuixote|talk]]) 02:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC) |
::::{{u|El_C}}, It is an [[ad-hominem]] argument because it seeks to invalidate my argument by casting aspersions on my conduct rather than addressing the substance of my point. {{u|Tartan357}}, I politely request that you edit your comment to simply state your point and refrain from making accusations against me. For example: "The consensus of a BLP/N discussion was that it is acceptable to equate these terms per the dictionary definition." Then I think we can remove the rest of this "thread" as off-topic to the RfD discussion. [[User:AnonQuixote|AnonQuixote]] ([[User talk:AnonQuixote|talk]]) 02:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC) |
||
:::::{{u|AnonQuixote}}, again, there is absolutely nothing that is ad hominem in Tartan357's statement. Your conduct is very much subject to comment and review — that it was in error is besides the point. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 02:46, 18 January 2021 (UTC) |
:::::{{u|AnonQuixote}}, again, there is absolutely nothing that is ad hominem in Tartan357's statement. Your conduct is very much subject to comment and review — that it was in error is besides the point. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 02:46, 18 January 2021 (UTC) |
||
::::::Per the linked article, an ad-hominem argument is one where "the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself." Not saying my conduct should be immune to criticism, but this RfD discussion isn't the right forum for that. [[User:AnonQuixote|AnonQuixote]] ([[User talk:AnonQuixote|talk]]) 02:55, 18 January 2021 (UTC) |
|||
{{collapse bottom}} |
{{collapse bottom}} |
Revision as of 02:55, 18 January 2021
January 15
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 15, 2021.
40 Eridani A b
- 40 Eridani A b → 40 Eridani (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: //delete ]
Duplicate redirect. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 23:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- Do you mean a duplicate of 40 Eridani Ab? That would be OK, no harm in having both correct and incorrect (typo, spelling, etc.) redirects to help people out. On a procedural point, since you are the creator of the redirect and the only substantive editor of it, you could blank the page and ask for a speedy deletion. Not saying you should, but you could. Lithopsian (talk) 15:22, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. It would be better to simply remove the Exoplanets in the Gliese Catalog category and add {{R avoided double redirect}}. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 23:28, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
EPIC 249631677b
No pages link here. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 21:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. So what if no pages link to it? It's still a valid alternative name for the target (see e.g. [1]). SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 22:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: actually I realize now that the redirect was created by the nominator, so this could be considered a WP:G7 speedy deletion. I still think the redirect should be kept, though. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 22:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Allma
This redirect can be considered confusing, going against WP:POLA. I looked for more appropriate pages to link to, but came up short. I also realized that I removed the only instance of this redirect from List of meat substitutes so I don't know if this should even still exist. There are no mentions of "Allma" except a single short mention on the Chlorella page. Sfern824 (talk) 21:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Almost all of the first two pages of google results for "Allma" relate to a construction company in Glasgow, and the only two relating to food are from the manufacturer's website. This, combined with the lack of any information on Wikipedia means this is not a useful redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 22:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Drive pulley
- Drive pulley → Drum motor (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: //delete ]
There is no direct link between "drive pulley" and "drum motor" (many types of motors may have a pulley). I am not sure that "drive pulley" needs a page, deciding about this is beyond my technical knowledge, but for sure, if it exists, then it should not redirect to a type of motor. "drive pulley" may possibly redirect to just "pulley", that would already be much better I think ("drive pulley" is used in at least one wikipedia page on turntables, where pulley would be fine). Pmarbaix (talk) 21:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- Retarget to Pulley#Belt_and_pulley_systems, as a drive pulley is a component part of a belt and pulley system. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 13:22, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Shaheen Afradi
- Shaheen Afradi → Shaheen Afridi (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: //delete ]
This redirect was created from a page move for a reason that while creating the page a typo occured in title which was corrected by moving the page to current title. [2] USaamo (t@lk) 17:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:CHEAP. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:57, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete: Afradi is an unusual typo. This redirect is unlikely to be helpful. Walrus Ji (talk) 09:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Redirects are cheap is a flawed policy. It may make sense to some, but imo, plenty of the redirects that are "cheap" make no sense and do not add to Wikipedia in any positive way. Get rid of it. Lettlerhello • contribs 22:34, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Normally I would close this sort of !vote split as delete, but given that a very similar redirect has less of a consensus I think that this should be given a relist as well.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Shaheen Shah Afradi
- Shaheen Shah Afradi → Shaheen Afridi (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: //delete ]
Mistakenly created double redirect, not a plausible typo either. Afridi is a well known family name. Afradi in Roman Urdu is plural word which means individuals and its quite irrelevant to here. USaamo (t@lk) 17:55, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:CHEAP, with his full name being Shaheen Shah Afridi. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- We already have a redirect on his full name i-e Shaheen Shah Afridi. USaamo (t@lk) 18:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep this is a very plausible search term. The existence of other redirects to the same target is not relevant. Thryduulf (talk) 02:30, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete: Afradi is an unusual typo. This redirect is unlikely to be helpful. Walrus Ji (talk) 09:15, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Redirects are cheap is a flawed policy. It may make sense to some, but imo, plenty of the redirects that are "cheap" make no sense and do not add to Wikipedia in any positive way, like this redirect. Get rid of it. Lettlerhello • contribs 22:34, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Doesn't make sense for this to exist when there already is a redirect from the full name, Shaheen Shah Afridi. Highly unlikely that someone might find this helpful. ☎️ Churot DancePop 06:42, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Moral Government Theology
- Moral Government Theology → Governmental theory of atonement (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: //delete ]
"Moral Government Theology" is a theology that Alan Gomes found taught in YWAM from the 1970s until the 1990s (cf. his book: Lead Us Not Into Deception, page 1). It incorporates some theological distinctives: Open theism, Pelagianism, Governmental theory of atonement and specific teachings about the attributes of God. This redirect is misleading because it can lead to think that Governmental theory of atonement includes all what is included in "Moral Government Theology". I propose then to delete this redirect.---Telikalive (talk) 12:24, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Moral government theory is also a redirect (to the same target) so we can't retarget to that. Thryduulf (talk) 12:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC).
- @Thryduulf: I used the redirect name you are talking about only to emphasize an additional factor of confusion. But, I tried to make my explanation clearer.---Telikalive (talk) 15:24, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- I'm now completely uncertain what you are proposing. Thryduulf (talk) 15:28, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Thryduulf: Realy ? then I rationalized it a little more. ---Telikalive (talk) 15:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- I'm now completely uncertain what you are proposing. Thryduulf (talk) 15:28, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Isabel Guzman (politician)
- Isabel Guzman (politician) → Isabel Casillas Guzman (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: //delete ]
Delete. While "Isabel Guzman" is a likely search term for Isabel Casillas Guzman, "Isabel Guzman (politician)" is not. This individual is not a politician or political candidate and this redirect is misleading. KidAd talk 03:48, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Administrator of the Small Business Administration is not an elected position, but there are many people who have held such unelected positions in government that most people would agree are politicians, such as Colin Powell, who has never held an elected position. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 07:49, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per Oiyarbepsy. Redirects are not bound by the same strict naming standards as articles. ― Tartan357 Talk 04:54, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Wikpedia:Draft namespace
- 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. Whether we call these G6, R2, or just "no one is ever going to use these to search", there's no reason to keep them around. Primefac (talk) 13:06, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
- Wikpedia:Draft namespace → Wikipedia:Drafts (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: //delete ]
- Wikpedia:Sexist wikipedia → Wikipedia:How sexist is Wikipedia? (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: //delete ]
- Wkipedia:Merge → Wikipedia:Merging (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: //delete ]
- Wiikipedia:WikiProject Latin America/The 10,000 Challenge → Wikipedia:WikiProject Latin America/The 10,000 Challenge (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: //delete ]
The redirect titles have typos in the Wikipedia (project) namespace, but all the redirects are in the main (article) namespace. They don't seem very necessary, useful, or helpful for a cross-namespace redirect, as they have less than 100 pageviews. Therefore, delete unless justification can be provided. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 18:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- User:Seventyfiveyears, what is in mainspace? I don’t see that any redirects or targets are in mainspace. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:35, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete, possibly speedily as G6 (pages created in the wrong namespace due to an error) but I haven't checked that. The typos in the word "Wikipedia" mean these are not useful redirects. Thryduulf (talk) 00:40, 16 January 2021 (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.
Shawshank (disambiguation)
- Shawshank (disambiguation) → The Shawshank Redemption (disambiguation) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: //delete ]
The target does not disambiguate "Shawshank" (because "Shawshank" is not ambiguous). Shawshank redirects to Shawshank State Prison, the only use of "Shawshank". Delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Incitement of insurrection
- Incitement of insurrection → Second impeachment of Donald Trump (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: //delete ]
Retarget to sedition. This search term is not specific to the second impeachment of Donald Trump. ― Tartan357 Talk 04:18, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- Support Retarget to sedition, per nominator's reasoning. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 04:38, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- Support retarget Lembit Staan (talk) 05:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- Retarget per nom. Generic terms like this should not target a specific instance. Thryduulf (talk) 11:30, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- Support retarget: agreed that it's an unhelpful redirect, as is. —WingedSerif (talk) 22:21, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- Remark: RSs pertaining to the impeachment, e.g. [3], are treating the charge and sedition as separate concepts, so seems potentially misleading to conflate them via this redirect. AnonQuixote (talk) 03:12, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
- @AnonQuixote: the point of this discussion is that "incitement of insurrection" as a term is not specific to whatever is or isn't happening with regards to one person. As a general term out of context readers will be most helped by being taken to the general article on sedition. If the term is being used differently in a specific circumstance (and consensus doesn't seem to agree with you that it is) then that is something which, if WP:DUE, should be mentioned in the target article or other appropriate location. Thryduulf (talk) 13:16, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
- Yes I agree, however I still think it's worth pointing out as, if this redirect is changed to point to sedition, it will likely be used primarily in articles dealing with Trump's recent impeachment, which could be misleading. I vote to Delete per WP:R#DELETE point 2 / WP:RNEUTRAL. AnonQuixote (talk) 18:45, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
- Any redirect can be used in a misleading manner, that's only reason to delete the redirect if it is itself misleading and cannot be retargeted to avoid that. In this case if someone links to the redirect intending a target specific to Donald Trump then the correct course of action is just to change the link to point to whatever the correct target is. As for RNEUTRAL - the violation of that would be to imply that Donald Trump is the only person to have incited insurrection (whether he has or hasn't it is unarguable that other people have done so on other occasions). If the redirect is used in a non-neutral manner in an article then fix the article, deleting the redirect will not resolve the issue and will just make it harder for people looking for general content (and possibly break any other uses). Thryduulf (talk) 21:19, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
- Yes I agree, however I still think it's worth pointing out as, if this redirect is changed to point to sedition, it will likely be used primarily in articles dealing with Trump's recent impeachment, which could be misleading. I vote to Delete per WP:R#DELETE point 2 / WP:RNEUTRAL. AnonQuixote (talk) 18:45, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Collapsing. I think we're done with this digression. El_C 02:47, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
|
---|
|