. ✗plicit 12:15, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
{{old rfd list|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 17#Noitaton hsilop|Speedy delete per G7}}
Previously deleted per G7 following the March 2020 RfD. New redirect does not resolve concerns raised last time. No useful results on the Internet. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:59, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
- A question for any passing admins: Did the old redirect also have an "incorrect name" notice? If so, could we subject this to a G4? — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 04:04, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
- It didn't, but it wouldn't be subject to G4 either way. G4 only applies to pages deleted as a result of the consensus of a deletion discussion but this was speedily deleted (on the request of a different author) - even though it was listed at RfD it was only there for about 90 minutes before deletion so doesn't count. Thryduulf (talk) 08:02, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
- Delete: This should at the very least target Reverse Polish Notation not just Polish Notation, but RPN is more taking thins like and turning it into TartarTorte 12:59, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
- Delete as an implausible search term and an incomprehensible joke that doesn't embody what Polish notation is anyway. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 14:04, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. I can't stand the existence of WP:PANDORA, but it definitely applies here. Steel1943 (talk) 17:37, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
- :For the record, my stance remains unchanged in the face of the creator's "keep" comment. Steel1943 (talk) 13:59, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
- :
...But weak retarget to Reverse Polish notation may be okay. Steel1943 (talk) 14:02, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
- ::...Never mind on that. The existence of this redirect would still result in the issue I stated in my "delete" comment. Steel1943 (talk) 20:33, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Not used, hence useless. --CiaPan (talk) 18:54, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
- Delete, purely a joke and an implausible search term. eviolite (talk) 01:11, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
- Obvious keep. Of course this is a joke, even a very old joke, but not ours. In contrast to what a few commented above, this is not an implausible search term at all. You will find hits for it in Google and even in a few publications, so people occasionally run into it in the real world possibly not "getting it" and wondering what it is, then turning to Wikipedia rightfully expecting to get an answer. If we don't have an entry point for it, we are doing them a disservice and leave them uneducated - this is against our goal to create an encyclopedia for everyone to use, old or young, smart or dumb, funny or dry. Our normal procedure for misnomers like this is to create a redirect to the correct term and tag the redirect with the special rcat
{{r from misnomer{{!}}correct term}} (as we already do), so that it cannot be confused with a "proper" term. The rcat allows for automatic bot correction of the term if someone would link to it. There might be other rcats even identifying this as a genuine joke, if so we might consider adding them as well. Per our criteria for redirects WP:REDIR, this redirect cannot cause any kind of confusion as we are explicitly telling users that this is not the correct term. It will be only entered into the search box by people running into the term in the real world, and for them, it is clearing up the confusion they are under by pointing them to the correct term per WP:R#KEEP #3. This is not weaking Wikipedia as a serious encyclopedia, but strenghening it, and by deleting the redirect, we will not improve Wikipedia in the slightest, but making it less reliable. Therefore, keep.
- : --Matthiaspaul (talk) 18:30, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
- :@Matthiaspaul in searching for "Noitaton hsilop" -wikipedia on google, I got 14 results. Albeit, they are other people using the term, but it seems to refer to RPN and not just standard Polish Notation. I'm wavering on whether that is strong enough for a retarget to RPN from my own view, but I was wondering if you would be interested in a retarget to Reverse Polish Notation or if you want to keep at Polish Notation? TartarTorte 22:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
::: You are probably right that this is mostly used by people in the RPN camp (because that's what is actually used by calculators, not PN), but since "Noitaton hsilop" is literally "Polish notation" reversed, I think it makes more sense to link to Polish notation rather than reverse Polish notation. Both articles are crosslinked, so users will find what they are looking for either way. (If our community would prefer to link it to RPN and this would help to find a compromise I could support that as well. Either link target is better than no link target at all. But still, I think, linking to PN is better.) --Matthiaspaul (talk) 15:27, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
:::: Having it redirect to Polish notation defeats the point of explaining the joke; that "reverse Polish notation" is polish notation but backwards. That said, I don't think it's the job of Wikipedia to explain jokes to people (unless the joke is notable enough to have its own article, in which case the joke should be explained explicitly not implicitly using a redirect; not everyone getting redirected will get the hint or understand why the redirect exists). – Scyrme (talk) 16:19, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. I'm convinced by Mattiaspaul's comments above. That this has been independently created twice strengthens those arguments. Thryduulf (talk) 22:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. I don't think it's the job of an encyclopaedia to explain a low quality joke even if it is common. Puns and jokes based on rhyming slang are common, but that doesn't mean we should redirect them the articles that cover their referents. As noted by Steel1943, WP:PANDORA applies since keeping this redirect creates the expectation that Wikipedia encourages joke redirects which could be defended on the same basis (that they are common, at least in someone's opinion). This redirect has been created and deleted before, and is currently listed at WP:DAFT; it may be worth considering salting it to prevent to being remade and brought to discussion again. – Scyrme (talk) 16:19, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
:: It isn't the purpose of Wikipedia to explain jokes, but it is the purpose of Wikipedia to educate people regardless of their background, and more specifically it is the very purpose of redirects to direct people to the information they are seeking. Someone entering this term into our search box is obviously not "getting it", therefore s/he is very much in need of us (and even explicitly reaching out to us) to eliminate their confusion.
:: Regarding joke "quality", I do not find this joke to be very funny as well, but per WP:N it is our duty to remain neutral and not apply judgements or let personal tastes influence our editorial or infrastructural work in the project. The point is not if this joke is funny or not, but that the term might be entered into our search box by people genuinely seeking for help (and seriously - since they are obviously not aware of the fact that this was meant to be funny), and if we do not give them the information they look for it's a double loss: They remain "unenlighted" and we lose our reputation as an encyclopedia because we wasted their time and did not help (even if we could).
:: I could understand your "ideal world" logic if the redirect would interfere with another potential article or could be taken as a "legitimate" alternative name or show up in the index, but since it is declared as {{tl|R from misnomer}} this does not and cannot happen - it is automatically set to be "unprintworthy" and won't show up in the index. There is absolutely nothing that could be gained by deleting the redirect, but keeping it will help those people who really need this help. And publicly brandmarking the term as a misnomer with all the power of our encyclopedic reputation will even help to ensure that it will never become accepted by larger audiences as a proper alternative term. Seeking for the highest encyclopedic standards, it is better to explicitly point out errors as errors than trying to silently ignore them as if they wouldn't exist. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 18:14, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
:::Helping someone get a joke is not the function of a general encyclopaedia, which is what Wikipedia is. Someone's hypothetical confusion over not getting it is irrelevant. Helping people understand jokes is a job for sites like UrbanDictionary and KnowYourMeme. This redirect has no relevant encyclopaedic value whatsoever because it isn't even a topic, it's just the phrase "polish notation" written backwards.
:::Regarding the comment on quality, personal taste wasn't the point, the point was that this joke isn't especially elaborate or complicated and is overall a very minor issue that does not warrant special consideration; that is, it's no different from any other joke of its kind.
:::I don't know what you mean by my "ideal world" logic, because I didn't refer to any ideal world. If you mean my reference to the "job of an encyclopaedia", I wasn't talking about a hypothetical "ideal encyclopaedia", I was talking practically. Practically, that's not what an encyclopaedia does. Resources that explain phrases and discuss jokes are dictionaries and joke books, not encyclopaedias; different types of text do different types of work.
:::Additionally, no-one here is worried about this being taken for a proper alternative or legitimate synonym; your solution is looking for a problem that doesn't exist. The practical problem here is WP:PANDORA. – Scyrme (talk) 19:39, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
:::: It is a solution to a problem that actually does exist, you are just not seeing it because you obviously use Wikipedia differently - that's not a problem, as everyone uses it in different ways, but that's why we should try hard to imagine how other users might be using it and address all of these styles so that it will be useful for everyone instead of enforcing (a personally preferred) one. In addition to guideline WP:R#KEEP #3, #5 applies as well to this redirect: "Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful—this is not because the other person is being untruthful, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways."
:::: Since its creation the redirect catched about a handful of cases where users were entering this term into the search box each month, and redirected them to the corresponding article, and it thereby actually helped those "unenlighted" users who didn't get the joke. I consider this to be a success for the project - mission accomplished - that's what makes Wikipedia great and better than traditional encyclopedias! Not pointing users to the relevant info is an indication of a major failure on our side. We often keep redirects even from rather obscure and implausible misspellings, so the threshold for keeping a redirect is very low. An unusual term, which however is even used in some books, is far beyond this threshold.
:::: WP:PANDORA is only an essay (which does not reflect community consensus), not a guideline, and it does not apply here anyway, as what we do is to redirect from one unusual term to the proper article discussing the topic. The term happens to be meant humorously, but we are not explaining a joke and therefore we are not opening any kind of pandora's box to explain jokes. We redirect to the related article simply because the term is sometimes used in the real world and some people do not know that it is used to refer to (reverse) Polish notation by others. We would do the same if the alternative term would be (the totally humor-free) term "Xyzabc" rather than "Noitaton hsilop" because we just do what we always do: Redirect from possible input terms to the related article.
:::: --Matthiaspaul (talk) 17:47, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
:::::I did not deny that someone might hypothetically find it useful. I said it's not Wikipedia's job to be useful in this way. Travel guides are useful, but they belong on WikiVoyage not Wikipedia. Recipes are useful, but they belong on WikiBook's Cookbook not here. Many things are useful, doesn't mean Wikipedia should do them. Usefulness is not the only relevant criterion.
:::::Implausible misspellings should also be deleted, if they have been kept in the past that's a mistake. In-fact the guidelines state that they often qualify for speedy deletion, skipping this entire process.
:::::That WP:PANDORA is only an essay doesn't mean it's irrelevant; it's still a valid argument. Pointing to the essay is just a helpful way to get past explaining the reasons why this is a problem, particularly why some redirects aren't "cheap".
:::::As for {{tq|but we are not explaining a joke}}, it's still a redirect to an article from a joke; it opens the door to redirecting similar jokes regardless of whether the redirect explains the joke. The point still stands. I referred to "explaining the joke" only as a counterargument to your defending this redirect on the basis that it helps people get the joke, which is effectively the same thing as "explaining" it - or at least that's how I interpreted what you said. Had you only argued that this joke is common enough to be worth keeping, without arguing that it might help someone get the joke, I would've omitted that point and still argued that this sets a precedent for creating joke redirects. – Scyrme (talk) 18:41, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete implausible search term re-created without consensus. Jontesta (talk) 23:56, 13 September 2022 (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.
