⛹️ ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This was closed as "delete" despite there not being consensus to delete, in my opinion. I see this as a discussion to decide whether it is better to have ⛹️ target basketball or ball game, and the majority of discussion was in line with that. There were a few delete !votes, but one of them was patently ridiculous (no, the emoji isn't a yo-yo or a severed head) and another was a boilerplate WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Finally, a third delete !vote was a bit stronger (although I disagree that it's ambiguous), and the closer used the language of that !vote in their closing rationale. However, the vast majority of discussion does not lend support to this conclusion. For example, I was supportive of a retarget to either basketball or ball game, but I am not supportive of deletion. I feel this should be relisted so I can get clarification from those who participated in the discussion to see whether or not they support deletion (because for the majority of !votes, this was unclear). -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 19:49, 22 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Do we make redirects from emojis? I recognize some may be important enough to have an article, but otherwise they'd fall under NOT DICTIONARY. DGG ( talk ) 04:19, 23 September 2017 (UTC) reply

See Wikipedia:EMOJI. ^~ Hydronium^~Hydroxide^{~ (Talk)~} 08:38, 23 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Overturn there's no reason to delete an article at all when a merge or redirect option has a numerical preponderance: the specific target can be sorted out, e.g., via a relisting, but consensus was clearly not for deletion. Mind you, i think we should actually ban emojis entirely, but that's not current policy even if I want it to be. Jclemens ( talk) 05:56, 23 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Endorse speaking for myself, my !vote for a target was based on it being unambiguous, and if I had come back to the RfD afterwards, I would have !voted to delete based on the clear confusion demonstrated in the RfD as to what the target for this emoji should have been. The disagreement as to the meaning of the character within the RfD, combined with the agreement that it was at the wrong target left the closer with little other option. TonyBallioni ( talk) 16:57, 23 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• This is something I would definitely have relisted. Excluding cases like "person holding a severed head" and the like, the only real ambiguity discussed in the RfD was between a specific meaning ( basketball) and the generic meaning ( ball game). This sort of ambiguity can be taken as an argument for retargeting to the generic meaning (which subsumes the specific one), but it seems odd to see it as justifying deletion. – Uanfala 17:11, 23 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to relist as requested by Tavix. I do not see a consensus for deletion in the discussion. For redirects, lack of consensus for where to redirect should default to no consensus, not deletion.

  Cunard ( talk) 03:41, 24 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• This row in Miscellaneous Symbols is a possible redirect target:

  Miscellaneous Symbols Unicode block

  Official Name	Glyph	Unicode #	HTML	Common meaning
  Person with ball	⛹	U+26F9	⛹	Track and field, gymnasium. From ARIB STD B24.

  We can add an anchor to that row: Miscellaneous Symbols#⛹️. It is better than the other targets gym, ball game, and basketball because different operating systems display different glyphs, which could be confusing to the reader, and because it gives readers more information. It tells readers the symbol's official name, glyph, unicode number, HTML, and common meaning.

  Tavix ( talk · contribs), what do you think about this alternative redirect target?

  Cunard ( talk) 03:41, 24 September 2017 (UTC) reply

It is not the purpose of DRV to discuss alternative redirects. If the discussion is relisted, then we'll discuss. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 17:09, 24 September 2017 (UTC) reply

No, it may not be, but this gets more eyes on a problem that didn't get an adequate solution the first time around, so I'm completely fine with "not the purpose" dialogue happening here if it provides a better solution than those considered at the AfD. And yes, I agree that Cunard's suggestion is more elegant than anything brought up in the AfD. Jclemens ( talk) 00:47, 25 September 2017 (UTC) reply

So let's get this relisted and then it can be discussed at the proper venue: RfD (not AfD). -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 01:09, 25 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Overturn to relist per nom. I share the concerns with some of the delete !votes, and would have relisted it if I had closed it to allow more time to discuss a redirect target.---- Patar knight - ^chat/ _{contributions} 05:26, 24 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Endorse but redirect to the miscellaneous symbols page as suggested by Cunard. In the discussion there was general agreement that the redirect pointed to the wrong place but no consistent notion of the proper target, as well as substantial support for the idea that it shouldn't point anywhere. Closing the discussion as anything other than delete would have left it still redirecting to the wrong target, so the close was the least bad option among a bunch of unsatisfactory alternatives. Reyk _YO! 07:55, 24 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Endorse there was no consensus for a single option in that discussion, the issue is about what "no consensus" means here. "No consensus" normally means defaulting to "keep", which would be downright silly here as nobody thought that was a good idea. Rather it means we're in the situation reflected in Finnusertop's comment, where the title is ambiguous and we can't agree on a definite target. Usual practice in that situation is not to have a redirect. Relisting is not a substitute for no consensus, it's used when the discussion hasn't had enough participation, and this one had plenty. Hut 8.5 19:49, 24 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. The delete arguments failed to cite any real policy-based arguments, and were severely overweighed in the closure. The discussion was narrowing down its options, and should have been relisted to gather further comments. I "delete" result makes absolutely no sense here. ℯ xplicit 02:09, 25 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Endorse per Hut 8.5's articulate comment above. Everyone agreed that gym was not was not an appropriate target, and I don't think that a consensus of users agreed on a new target. One clarification about my !vote in this RfD: my comments were meant to be a general critique of WP:EMOJI (I don't think it should be a guideline or policy on Wikipedia), and it was not meant to be a "I don't like emojis" vote. -- Notecardforfree ( talk) 19:10, 25 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. The logic in the close was that if we don't know where to redirect it to, it's better to not redirect at all. Doing so would essentially be WP:OR about what the symbol means. Yes, it's true that the emojipedia examples all look like basketballs, but it's easy to find other examples [1] [2] that use a more generic image. And, the official unicode page is silent on what kind of ball it is. Let's not turn the pedia into 💩 -- RoySmith (talk) 20:47, 25 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. The redirect common outcomes page sited above says "character has a clear and definite meaning matching an existing topic on Wikipedia,". it is obvious from this discussion that it does not have a clear and definite meaning. Personally, I would oppose any redirect of this sort, and think we need a guideline to that effect to clarify our policy NOT DICTIONARY-- but in any case, this one is not suitable. DGG ( talk ) 00:31, 26 September 2017 (UTC) reply