This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 14, 2012
WP:Dick
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.
Comment: This is the wrong place to discuss this IMHO it is more suited in MFD. If a "delete" decision is reached please allow me to replace every instance of "WP:DICK" and "Wikipedia:Dick" with "Meta:Don't be a dick" so that the archived discussions have the relevant link. People will still be using
m:Dick mind you so I do not really see the point of this nomination. --
A Certain White Catchi? 20:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
I would say Delete as cross namespace redirect, but it is more than that, essentially it as a cross webspace redirect, i.e. it goes to a different site (Wikimedia.) Obvious delete.
I presume, what nobody else has said, is that some silly schoolboy think it is funny to have an article titled "Dick" (in UK English that is slang for penis). Let him have his fun doing so, but as far as I see it, it has no benefit for Wikipedia UK or Wikimedia.
m:Dick is a core policy though. And project namespace has no articles. --
A Certain White Catchi? 18:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Keep for now, as a natural shortcut to an established essay. When (not if) Wikipedia outgrows its puerile adolescent stage the essay will be deleted or rewritten and re-titled, but Wikipedia is only eleven years old so it will be a while. ~
Ningauble (
talk)
15:36, 22 January 2012 (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.
articles prefixed by "c:"
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 Close. If this bug is fixed the pages can be dealt with by non-controversial admin actions. So, this discussion is not necessary. In addition, not all those page are redirects.
Ruslik_
Zero16:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment simply a technical argument agreeing with Dmitrij (and I respect him very much). As it stands with Wikipedia, we have to assess each article in isolation, not refer to other articles or other site. I agree with Dmitiri giving a bug reference is rather sad, really, and there is a fairly simple answer to that:The bug has been reported, the cause has been diagnosed, you are free to edit the software, now either bitch or make it better. The argument about Caps c versus lower C is moot here, since the Wikimedia software will take an inital cap in either case (see
WP:TITLE,
WP:NAME and
WP:PF (parser functions) so that argument falls at the first hurdle.
Si Trew (
talk)
13:23, 16 January 2012 (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.