Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 June 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 1[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 1, 2012

Socially liberal[edit]

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 Disambiguate. Thryduulf (talk) 14:49, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The page it re-directs to is not a synonym. At present the re-direct page links out to Pride parade, Yuppie, Pseudo-anglicism, East coast liberal, Democratic Convergence of Catalonia, Maryland Democratic Party and Jaunlatvija. The use of links in these articles appears to be over-linking. TFD (talk) 18:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment There's a relevant discussion ongoing (?) at Talk:Social liberalism#Contemporary, popular use of term 'socially liberal'. For what it's worth, I don't fully understand the rationale here. If "socially liberal" doesn't mean the same as "adhering to social liberalism", then what does it mean? And I don't see how any of the uses in the linked articles constitute overlink. – hysteria18 (talk) 22:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to agree with Hysteria18 here. Grammatically, it's the adverbial form of the same adjective-noun combination. If you don't think "socially liberal" means "one who believes in social liberalism", what do you think it means? Are you arguing that it should redirect to something like Cultural liberalism instead? Regardless, there is no basis to delete the redirect. Rossami (talk) 00:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Many (most) redirects are not "synonyms" - they are there to benefit readers who might well use the term, and where the best fit is another article which exists. And a redirect has nothing to do with whether the page it links to has other links - I suggest that most pages would fall into that category <g>. Collect (talk) 12:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Adherents of social liberalism are socially liberal, and socially liberal people are adherents of social liberalism. It's vaguely like making Dancer and Dancing redirect to Dance — they're not synonyms, but they're forms of the same word and refer to precisely the same topic. Nyttend (talk) 21:46, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I started the relevant discussion that hysteria18 refers to above, so I thought I would comment here. I understand that when a person is described as "socially liberal" (as the Economist does in the article Right man, wrong job) it commonly means they believe that legislation primarily aimed to impact on the private / personal lives of individuals should be minimised. Other commentators who share a similar understanding of the term can be found within the Adam Smith Institute, the Huffington Post, again in The Economist (this time with an actual definition) and elsewhere on the web. Currently however socially liberal simply redirects to social liberalism and this latter article makes no mention of what I believe is the common usage of socially liberal, instead its sole premise being that "social liberalism is the belief that liberalism should include social justice". I therefore edited the article to include what I believe is the contemporary use of socially liberal. This edit was however removed with the reason given as being "off-topic." Although I would have been happy for my edit to have been refined and improved (and in retrospect I think it could be improved), I objected to its complete removal. The conclusion of this discussion was the socially liberal article should be put up for deletion. Although that is one option there are others: a.) If socially liberal continues to link to social liberalism some explanation of its contemporary use should be included (accepting my original edit could be improved), b.) The socially liberal article becomes an article in its own right as opposed to simply a redirect or c.) socially liberal is redirected elsewhere (possibly cultural liberalism). I have no strong opinion on which of these options is chosen, but I do believe that the wikipedia article for socially liberal is currently misleading in that it makes no reference to what is a contemporary, popular use of the term - someone with no prior knowledge would assume that someone who is socially liberal simply believes that liberalism should include social justice, and although that is possibly some people's understanding it is certainly not everyone's. If the choice is between the status quo or deletion then I vote for the latter. NB I will not be able to contribute further to this debate from today as I'll be offline for a period (to the delight of many I'm sure...). DistractionActivity (talk) 10:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • On reflection, dabify seems to me like the best option. – hysteria18 (talk) 23:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article "Social liberalism" is about liberalism that supports the welfare state, while "socially liberal" refers to people who are tolerant of different cultures and lifestyles. One may support old age security, yet be opposed to same sex marriage, or one may believe in the equality of races yet not support government funded health care. They are different topics. TFD (talk) 12:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If there are reliable sources which establish that the phrase "socially liberal" refers more reliably to the concept of Cultural liberalism and not to Social liberalism, then simply cite the competing sources on the Talk page and retarget the redirect. (I am skeptical that this is universally true though it is perhaps a reasonable interpretation in the context of US politics and culture wars.) Regardless of target, though, there is no reason at all to delete the existing redirect. Rossami (talk) 18:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: There is no consensus above to delete the redirect, but whether it should be kept as is, retargeted or converted to a disambiguation page does not yet have consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 18:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget or dab In the United States, if someone describes themselves as "socially liberal" it means that they support abortion and gay marriage, as opposed to being an "economic liberal" who supports redistribution the welfare state. "Social liberal" itself would probably be understood the same way in the USA--since "social" refers specifically to non-economic issues (not socialism) and "liberal" does not imply that one is a free marketeer. This has nothing to do with the European term social liberal that refers to someone who is committed to liberalism (which in Europe includes support for the free market) but supports the welfare state. (This indeed characterizes much of the American center-left but we wouldn't use the same term). If you google "socially liberal" it mostly reflects the US definition--with the exception of pages based on Wikipedia itself. 169.231.120.215 (talk) 19:28, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • the first non-Wikipedia result that comes up is [1]; clearly they don't have social liberalism in mind as Wikipedia defines it. There's a lot of "fiscally conservative, socially liberal" after that. 169.231.120.215 (talk) 19:28, 6 June 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.

Art pop[edit]

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 Art music. Thryduulf (talk) 14:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target. Pop and rock are generally considered distinct, so art pop would presumably be distinct from art rock. (Progressive pop is a plausible target, but is currently prodded.) – hysteria18 (talk) 15:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep but almost certainly retargetted. A search for "art pop" in proximity to music returned enough hits to convince me that this is a legitimate sub-genre of music - a blending of art music and popular music. While the name probably derives from "art rock" (which blended art and rock music), the kinds of music tagged to this genre seem to be closer to the music we have described at ambient music. (Ambient pop redirects there, by the way.) On the other hand, Operatic pop might also be considered an example of "art pop" and that's anything but ambient. Perhaps the best current target is Art music#Relationship with popular music. That's a pretty thin section right now but it has potential. Rossami (talk) 20:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Further input on the best alternative target would be very useful here
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 18:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Art music, it seems the section 'Relationship with popular music' has been deleted. But it should still suffice as it is the umbrella term which includes Art rock. Rock and Pop are distinctively two different genre of music and one probably should not redirect to the other.--Michaela den (talk) 10:58, 27 June 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.

New York Bar[edit]

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 delete. Thryduulf (talk) 14:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominate for deletion on the basis of confusion, as the New York Bar and the New York State Bar Association are two entirely different entities. The New York Bar is the community of all attorneys licensed to practice in New York State (i.e., an attorney licensed to practice in New York State is a member of the New York Bar); the New York State Bar Association is a private, voluntary professional organization analogous to the American Bar Association, American Medical Association, etc.-Vartan Dadian (talk) 17:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, Vartan is describing a distinction without a difference. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:03, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is most certainly not a distinction without a difference. One must be a member of the New York Bar/New York State Bar in order to practice as an attorney in the State of New York, and such membership entails passing the state bar exam, undergoing a character & fitness review, and taking the oath and signing the ledger in a ceremony at the Appellate Division of one of the state's four Judicial Departments. Membership has absolutely nothing to do with the New York State Bar Association. The New York State Bar Association is merely a private, voluntary professional organization like the American Bar Association and American Medical Association. I'll refer you to their own web site:
The New York State Bar Association (NYSBA) is the oldest and largest voluntary state bar association in the nation, and is a separate entity from the licensing body for New York – the NYS Office of Court Administration (OCA). Unlike some other states, New York does not have an integrated bar.
Q: Does membership in the NYSBA entitle an attorney to practice in New York?
A: No. The NYSBA is not the official New York Bar and is not responsible for attorney licenses or registration. Please contact the NYS Office of Court Administration (OCA), the official licensing/registration unit. [2]
It seems you don't understand the distinction in states like New York that lack an "integrated"/"unified" bar between "the (state) Bar" and bar associations, so I'll cite to the Wikipedia entry on this topic:
In the United States, admission to the bar is permission granted by a particular court system to a lawyer to practice law in that system. This is to be distinguished from membership in a bar association. In the United States, some states require membership in the state bar association for all attorneys, while others do not.
The "New York Bar" and the "New York State Bar Association" are two completely different things.-Vartan Dadian (talk) 05:00, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment The search term "New York Bar" could also mean Bars as in the establishment from New York. Tideflat (talk) 04:55, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't keep, changing my vote due to clarification by Vartan. Best to convert to an article, or failing that, red link. Both pages would need "not to be confused with" hatnotes. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 16:06, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I agree that this is confusing and non-productive. Many other states have a similar public bar/private bar association distinction. It could also refer to a tavern (as noted above I see)! I like to saw logs! (talk) 05:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: regardless of whether they are the same thing or not, as the redirect stands now it is confusing. I would expect to find a New York drinking establishment or nightclub when I type in 'New York Bar' and not the State Bar for lawyers.--Michaela den (talk) 10:51, 27 June 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.

Short people[edit]

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 disambiguate. Accordingly, I've moved Short people (disambiguation) over this redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 14:58, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While "short people" is related to "dwarfism" the two are not synonyms (the former being a medical condition and the latter just being shorter than average). SQGibbon (talk) 03:27, 1 June 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.

Colcor[edit]

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 Delete. Ruslik_Zero 18:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely typo. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, if it were not getting the hits it does then I'd agree with the deletion. As it is, I'm not sure. It could be that people are looking for information about the COLCOR corruption scandal of the early 1980s in Columbus County, North Carolina [3] but the article on the county is just a standard demographics, adjacent places and one-line history US place article that doesn't mention any event more recent than 1808.
Alternatively they could be interested in the punk band, who likely took their name from the scandal. All we have on them is a name-check in a prose list at Music of North Carolina. From a 2-minute google, the scandal is likely notable for a section somewhere (the county page would be logical) or maybe an article (I don't know, maybe ask the North Carolina and crime wikiprojects). The band don't merit more than a sentence, if that, that I'm seeing. Thryduulf (talk) 03:19, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, according to Thryduulf's research there is potential for confusion. —Kusma (t·c) 09:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: it is not a plausible nor common spelling mistake, unless the searcher is really stupid.--Michaela den (talk) 10:35, 27 June 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2012_June_1&oldid=1091632853"