Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 March 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 11[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 11, 2012

Truman trusteeship proposal[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 Keep. Ruslik_Zero 08:57, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the redirect. No RS uses this term but it now appears in at least one template and thus in a couple dozen articles. I suggest deleting it to avoid something like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by No More Mr Nice Guy (talk • contribs) 23:54, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: this redirect is created as the result of page move and thus should be preserved for historic reasons. It's completely harmless and if it will mandate a new name for the proposal, so be it. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think wikipedia should be in the business of mandating new names for historical events. There wasn't much activity on the article before it was moved, and I seem to recall there's a way to merge article histories? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:07, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article's history moved with the page; the history preserved by keeping harmless redirects like this is the article's naming history, which can't be merged anywhere. It is a kind of auto-biographical thing for the Wikipedia's own history. I agree that it isn't Wikipedia's business to mandate new names for historical events, thus the whole thing of naming impact should e left out of consideration at all: it's out of the scope of our competence here. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I disagree. I don't know if there's a policy that governs this sort of thing, but I think wikipedia should take great care to only report (what others say) about topics and not to influence how those topics are reported. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Stating that this redirect influences the way the topic is reported elsewhere is plain silly. The article on topic is called American trusteeship proposal for Palestine and is shown as such regardless of whether it gets accessed directly or via this redirect. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Again, I disagree. The redirect was used in a template (I changed it now, we'll see if that sticks) which appears in dozens of articles. It's not outside the realm of possibility to assume a, say, newspaper reporter might pick it up when doing background research and use it thus creating a RS supporting the usage. Anyway, like I said, I don't know if there's a policy or what common practice is in such cases but personally I think this sort of thing probably comes up every so often and should be dealt with in such a way as to keep wikipedia from creating new names that RS don't use. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This redirect is the result of a very recent pagemove. While the content only existed at the prior title for a few months, it was the subject of both an AFD and a Requested move discussion and has been seen by multiple people and linked at that old title. Deletion of the redirect now would increase the chances of an accidental fork by one of those reader/editors.
    Please note that while Wikipedia content must meet the strict rules of WP:NPOV, redirects are held to a different standard. In fact, redirects from POV titles to a better less-POV title are encouraged. Redirects are explicitly not an endorsement of a title. (If they were, we would have to delete all our redirects from common misspellings, redirects from typos and, well, pretty much all redirects.) The "error" is resolved by taking the reader to an article with the right title both at the top of the page and within the content.
    The hypothetical scenario posed in this nomination fails as a reason to delete for several reasons. 1) The problem of repetition becoming a perceived truth is a universal problem that long pre-dated Wikipedia. Our policies can do little to change human nature. 2) A newspaper article based upon Wikipedia content explicitly may not be used as any kind of reliable source for further Wikipedia content. We might be tricked into it if the journalist fails to reference his/her source but that is unlikely because 3) any serious journalist working for a paper qualifying as a Wikipedia:Reliable source will also know Wikipedia's policies well enough to know that redirects are not endorsements of a title. Rossami (talk) 02:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I defer to the regulars here as to what the usual practice is in cases like this, but again (last time, I promise) I disagree. I think you are both underestimating the influence wikipedia has and overestimating the integrity of reporters (and others) when they source stuff from wikipedia. I think that at the bare minimum, a redirect that's not based on RS should not be used as a link. I understand that they might be useful as search terms, but if they're used as links in articles or templates then at some level they are part of the material of the article which a reader may legitimately assume complies with wikipedia policy (FWIW). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:59, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • You make a good argument to orphan the redirect (and possibly to tag it with {{unprintworthy}} but not to delete it. Orphaned redirects are extremely unlikely to ever be seen by a reader casually looking up a topic. (Despite that, they remain useful to the project.) Be bold and edit the article or template to bypass a POV redirect whenever you see one in use. Rossami (talk) 00:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - if it is not used by any reliable source, it is an unlikely search term. The notion that a journalist checking something on Wikipedia would be knowledgeable about its policies is ridiculous. All Rows4 (talk) 14:53, 13 March 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.

Supertonic chromatic chord[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 no consensus to delete. While there appears to be a general agreement that the current redirect is not ideal, I do not yet see consensus about what to do with the title instead. The discussion having gone over 3 weeks already, I see little chance that a better answer will emerge here. I am closing this as "no consensus to delete" which defaults to keep but not necessarily to keep-as-is.
Personally, I would find it educational if this very discussion became the core of a short article overwriting the redirect. Failing that, I recommend opening a discussion on the Talk page where folks much more familiar with the topic can continue the conversation. Rossami (talk) 21:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the redirect, the term "supertonic chromatic chord" was used in quotation marks in one book only, as a way for one writer to describe only one of the many forms a secondary dominant may take, thus making "supertonic chromatic chord" utterly impractical. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 03:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I see no indication of implausibility or harmfulness of this redirect. One may come across the term in some students' diploma or some paper, and looking up in Wikipedia in such case may be a possible reaction. That said, I believe the book nominator mentions should be mentioned on a talk page with a brief explanation of redirect. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per above. Redirects are cheap. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: "Supertonic chromatic chord" may have more meanings, and in no way, shape or form is it directly related to "secondary dominant" (other than this one writer using it once in one book in quotation marks). This is an utter failure of WP:UNDUE, as the majority does not hold the view required to "turn Pinocchio into a real boy". Keeping the redirect gives a made up word much more legitimacy than it deserves. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:51, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • That would be a good point for retargetting this redirect, though I see no better target and, nor you propose one. The WP:UNDUE is content policy, it doesn't apply to redirects. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Now that's just abuse of semantics. Quoting from WP:UNDUE: "the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all"... this is the classic case for that. Hyacinth created the redirect only to try and give the term legitimacy for inclusion in Ragtime progression, citing it to one book that used the "term" almost as a joke, in quotation marks. This kind of behavior should not be encouraged, as this produces misinformation which hinders the very idea of an encyclopedia. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:48, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • This redirect will only help some one searching that term to get to the right article. The redirect term is not opposed by any position or atleast not shown by you, nor are there any other claims for the title. It is a safe redirect on that account. This does not give the term any more credibility rather a route to the article. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • It would, had the term existed... except it doesn't. You're ignoring comments again, so if you want to prove the existence of this term in that context in multiple sources, please do so. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:03, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • Example: say, a book describes a battery-powered electric razor as "that thingamajiggy no travel pack is complete without". Would you support the redirect of "thingamajiggy" to an article about battery-powered electric razors? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 04:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • Definitely yes. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • I must have misread the sentence. In this context I wouldn't, but I definitely would if the book said "battery-powered electric razor (also called "thingamajiggy") is something no travel pack is complete without". — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 05:42, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • ...and we're getting somewhere here. The source in question says: "the dominant acquired its own dominant, the familiar 'supertonic chromatic chord'" (double quotation marks replaced with single to avoid font clutter). The expression "supertonic chromatic chord" can mean any chord that is positioned on the supertonic (e.g. second degree) and is chromatically altered from its functional sound, and a dominant seventh is only one of the many options for it. Therefore, it is unfair and misleading for someone who does not possess the sufficient knowledge of the subject to get introduced to "supertonic chromatic chord" as immediately meaning "secondary dominant". It would almost be like redirecting "animal" to "dog". Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Now I actually have a question: is it a term at all? "Tall brown dog" or "companion dog"? – Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • WP:UNDUE is a content policy, it has no effect on redirects. Though having a redirect from undue to due name is encouraged. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Funny, I have just re-read the policy... does not mention having no effect on redirects. Are they not part of content? But hey... if you'd like to go there – be my guest, here's a quote from the policy directly pertaining to redirects: "You might want to delete a redirect if[...]the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name, it is unlikely to be useful." Hearfourmewesique (talk) 13:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • Redirects are not content, as they contain no information. The criterion you cite doesn't apply as the term isn't neither novel, nor obscure (we have a book containing the term). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • It's obscure because we only have one book that has this "term" in quotation marks with absolutely no evidence elsewhere that points to its existence outside of that book and that one time it's mentioned there... again, looks like a tiny minority that has no real weight in the musicians' community. Being a musician myself, I can vouch for it. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 01:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • That's why it is minority view, and as such doesn't get mentioned in content of Wikipedia. Redirects are neither part of content (thus different deletion policy and etc.) nor alternative titles of the articles (though some really are). The opportunity that some reader search for this term in Wikipedia (either from reading that book or some paper mentioning it or whatever) is a rock-solid reason to keep redirect whatever obscure it may seem. The word "obscure" in WP:R#DELETE is supposed to be a polite replacement for "creator of redirect made it up from nowhere", which is quite not that case. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 05:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Asked for more input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music theory
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salix (talk): 21:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It might be useful to see who uses the term. Searching the Oxford online music dictionaries (which include Grove) yields no hits, nor does it have an entry in my paper edition of Grove (late 80s printing). However, it does seem to have been used by several authors including the fifth edition of Ebenezer Prout, p. 129 and p. 136 in about 1889; the Musical Times in 1924 (cited by Koenig, 2002, p. 350); and Peter van der Merwe in Roots of the Classical (2004), p. 299. I find it hard to discount or discredit those three, so would suggest that the term has had a long if restricted currency. Redirects are cheap in Wikipedia. Keep. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:41, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: The term can mean a secondary dominant, albeit a specific one--V/V. This is a supertonic chord with a raised third scale degree. This would not have an article in Grove as it is too specific. Upon consideration, I realized this term would especially appear in non-linear textbooks, which focuses more on a fundamental-bass theory (rather than Schenkerian theory.) For those reasons, this redirect should be kept without question in my opinion. — Devin.chaloux (chat) 15:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • My question to you is: how would you call a supertonic chord with a raised seventh? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:33, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • There would never be a supertonic chord with a raised seventh as it doesn't exist in classical theory. I'm positive I could find this term in a legitimate book. If you do a search for "supertonic chromatic" on Google Books, it brings you to plenty of sources. It is not as commonly used today because theory has shifted since the early- to mid-20th century towards a more linear approach which sees that chord as not a chromatically inflected supertonic chord, but rather as a secondary dominant - the term this article is being redirected to. — Devin.chaloux (chat) 18:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Is there no suspended seventh (or line clichés) in classical theory? Anyway, be that as it may – it definitely exists in modern/jazz theory. My point, for the entire time of this thread, has been that "supertonic chromatic chord" is a vague semi-made-up term that can be interpreted in various ways. Maybe redirecting it to chromaticism would solve the issue? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Possibly a hat note on the target?--Salix (talk): 20:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Please specify. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 23:00, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • There are suspended sevenths in classical theory, but they are analyzed as non-chord tones - not applicable in analyzing the basic structure of the chord. So the ultimate answer to your question is - no. The supertonic chromatic chord is a vague term. It is not semi-made-up though. It has been used. And if anything, it should redirect to Secondary dominant and not chromaticism since the supertonic chromatic chord is one specific type of secondary dominant and only loosely related to chromaticism in the broadest sense of the term. You have to realize that we need to bridge modern/jazz theory with classical theory--which by the way, should be the determining source of terminology as it is the field of music theory (which primarily is concerned with classical repertoire, but also has increasingly been including jazz and pop). Supertonic chromatic chord is a legitimate term. It is found in published books. Books that used to be commonly used.
                The reason we don't use this terminology is because the main thought of the field of music theory has shifted in the past 60 years from a vertical approach--where one would just look at a chord for its individual notes--to a horizontal approach--which is more concerned about function. This is ultimately what has caused a term like supertonic chromatic chord to become less used in favor of secondary dominant or chromatic chord. You can blame the theories of Heinrich Schenker for this debate ultimately. However, I will ardently fight any move of this redirect towards anything but Secondary dominant.
                In the future, when the secondary dominant article is rewritten to describe the different types that can be encountered, then the redirect can be focused specifically to the V/V subheading, where it belongs. Until then, having it redirect to secondary dominant will have to suffice. — Devin.chaloux (chat) 22:22, 13 March 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.

MIU (Movement for Israeli Urbanism)[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 keep. JohnCD (talk) 20:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary redir. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The redirect is harmless, and prior to your page move, the article was at this name for about a year. - Eureka Lott 17:09, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it is always done in all such cases: we preserve the movement history. This actually seems to be very pointy, as Alan Liefting keeps nominating such redirects for a fairly long period of time. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Artifact of a pagemove. Content existed at the title for a year prior to the move. No possibility of confusion or harm to readers. "Unnecessary" is explicitly not a valid reason to delete a redirect. Rossami (talk) 02:24, 13 March 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.

Music for the Hard of Thinking[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 Close. An article has been created. Ruslik_Zero 09:01, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Should be an article. Will pass WP:NALBUMS as it charted in Canada. Reviews, criticisms, articles are plenty. Argolin (talk) 05:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Be bold and write the article. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:08, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep an article would be ideal, but it is a likely search term and people may not know the artists. --Salix (talk): 09:32, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Create article move the sandboxed article to mainspace. Should be able to procedurally close after that.--Salix (talk): 21:59, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until someone actually writes the article. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:57, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've started the article. Salix one problem is the supposed link to the album from the Doug and the Slugs article redirects to back to itself as Doug and the Slugs. Are you willing to change your opinion now that I've started writing it?Argolin (talk) 21:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It'll probably be tomorrow or the day after as I really haven't written many articles, let alone music albums. I've linkrotted a few of my citations and I need to decide upon appropriate section heading names (and write more content). Argolin (talk) 23:23, 11 March 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.

List of English-language songs based on German-language songs[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 both. JohnCD (talk) 20:39, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't make sense to redirect a list of German-language songs to a list of French-language songs. It surely wouldn't help someone looking for such a thing; not that anyone is based on number of hits per month. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 03:13, 11 March 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.

Aggressive skating[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 Skating, as that is the actual DAB page and Skating (disambiguation) is merely a redirect to it. JohnCD (talk) 20:41, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It could be misleading to redirect the general topic to just a part of it. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 00:30, 11 March 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_March_11&oldid=1138578362"