Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 July 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 27

[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 27, 2014.

शुष्क वन अनुसंधान संस्थान

[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. 'Not English' is not, in itself, a sound ground for deletion - see WP:FORRED - though to be kept the language of the word or phrase must be directly related to the subject. Here, this is an official name for the Institute. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 00:58, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not english. βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 23:46, 27 July 2014 (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.

The Beast (1975 film)

[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. JohnCD (talk) 14:57, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect name, only remaining incoming links are a few archived bot search results, a stale user sandbox and an IP user vandalism warning. Paradoctor (talk) 21:21, 27 July 2014 (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.

"Weird Al" Yankovicn

[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) 14:55, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per previous discussions (2013 November 20 and 2013 December 4) as recently-created redirects to implausible machine-generated typos. Gorobay (talk) 15:15, 27 July 2014 (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.

Assburgers

[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 Ass Burgers, keep, keep, retarget, retarget, and keep, respectively. I think czarkoff has it right. It's true that in American English, at least, "ass burgers" and "Asperger's" are homophones; it's also true that intentionally referring to the syndrome as "ass burgers" would be pretty offensive.
However, we must consider that good-faith readers may use such search terms. Those that include "syndrome" in their query are almost certainly looking for Asperger syndrome, and will continue to go there. Those using a more ambiguous term will be taken to a modified version of their query with a good explanatory hatnote. I hope this addresses most of your concerns. --BDD (talk) 23:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An editor posted to Talk:Asperger syndrome#Assburgers redirects here that the redirect is offensive, and ensuing discussion indicated that a wider audience would be useful. I have mixed feelings on this one, so this is a purely procedural nomination. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:14, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the original discussion, it was mentioned that the Australian pronunciation is different. Speaking as an American, "ass burgers" and "Asperger's" sound exactly the same to me. Muffinator (talk) 18:49, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It should also be noted that both Assburger's syndrome and Assburger were kept prevously at a join RFD Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 January 23. and Assburger was kept a second time at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 March 11.--67.68.162.111 (talk) 21:20, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the last RFD I listed these redirects have actually been up for deletion several more times.--67.68.162.111 (talk) 21:22, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete* Offensive, derogatory and not necessary. Maybe as suggested, as a disambiguation, but for me. I'd prefer it to be removed. Cheers Read-write-services (talk) 02:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per WP:RNEUTRAL, redirects need not be inoffensive if they are commonly used. The term “Assburger” seems to be fairly common, usually as an insult but sometimes as a misspelling, and some of the nominated redirects get a lot of hits. Gorobay (talk) 03:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget Assburgers and Assburger to Ass Burgers: very plausible misspelling, target already has a hatnote pointing to Asperger syndrome. Keep Assburger's syndrome, Assburger syndrome, Assburger's and Assburgers syndrome per Gorobay's rationale. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 13:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep First, I totally get that this is an offensive set of redirects, and that on those grounds they really seem like they should be removed. Having said that, I must also reveal that I had never heard of the term until it was used in an episode of Boston Legal. And that when I heard it, I DID think it was a joke, and had NO way to know how it was spelled. I did not attempt to look it up on Wiki, but if I had done so, the only way I would have typed it would have been "Assburgers" or maybe "Ass burgers". And with the help of these redirects, I would then have been somewhat ashamed to learn how puerile I had been. On the other hand, if there had been no redirect, I would have just gone on thinking it was Assburgers and snickering to myself whenever I continued to hear it in the world. Having these as redirects, even as offensive ones, helps idiots like me realize what idiots we actually are sometimes, and keeps us from furthering the idiocy with careless repetition of what is definitely not a joke. I know it's offensive. I wish that someone with a different last name had created the name for the disease. But as a homonym, I think it may do more good than harm to retain these redirects— for idiots like me, who have no intention of making fun of the condition but don't know any better unless we are told. KDS4444Talk 17:09, 30 July 2014 (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.

The Rock

[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 The Rock (disambiguation) moved to The Rock, i.e., not recognizing a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. --BDD (talk) 23:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I propose re-targeting to Dwayne Johnson, professional wrestler and actor also popularly known by his ring name The Rock. From the page view statistics, Out of all the pages which could refer to "the Rock" (including anything called the Rocks), Dwayne Johnson has had 66.98% of the views in the last 90 days (more than 2/3!) and is ranked 369 in traffic on en.wiki. I did a similar count in 2013 where the percentage was 78.5%. Current stats below. starship.paint ~ regal 13:37, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Open for the Stats

Dwayne Johnson has been viewed 1862928 times in the last 90 days. From the Rock disambiguation page, other uses of "The Rock" in the last 90 days. Total of everything else is 918365. Total of all "The Rock": 2781293. Dwayne Johnson takes up 66.98%.

Tagging Niceguyedc, Flyer22 and creator Ed Poor. Also, comment on Part I of the proposal below.

  • here
Also, Part II of the proposal. Move all other "the Rock" or "the Rocks" to The Rock (disambiguation). starship.paint ~ regal 13:37, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Dwayne Johnson is clearly the most common use of "The Rock", although with so many other things using the name, Dwayne Johnson article should have a hatnote mentioning the redirect and linking to the disambiguation page. Muffinator (talk) 19:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; I don't see how it can be doubted that the vast majority of people typing in or clicking on "The Rock" are looking for the Dwayne Johnson article. And like I stated here, the edit history of the The Rock page shows that people keep redirecting it to the Dwayne Johnson article. Flyer22 (talk) 23:27, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose Newfoundland Island is "The Rock" ; which no one bothered to list in the usage stats (and was subject to a recent rename as well, being what is meant by "Newfoundland") ; The usage stats do not indicate what is the primary topic of "The Rock", since Dwayne Johnson's article is not situated at The Rock (wrestler), so regardless of how many views his page has, it does not mean that they are coming from "The Rock". And WP:RECENTISM, Newfoundland has had this nickname for much longer than Dwayne Johnson has been alive. Dwayne Johnson no longer wrestles under this name, and as an actor, he doesn't use it, suggesting that people looking for the actor are not looking for The Rock either. Also, the famous Rockefeller Center in NYC is also called "The Rock" and is also not listed here. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 06:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dwayne Johnson has not changed his professional wrestling ring name, he's still the Rock. Anything not reflected in the usage stats is probably not in the disambiguation page. Also, reliable sources like BBC and Reuters are still calling him the Rock. starship.paint ~ regal 08:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dwayne Johnson is no longer a wrestler, he retired. He's an actor now, and his screen credits do not say "The Rock". And the disambiguation page at "Rock" had alot more entries than those that were chosen for the limited statistics given here. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 03:19, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dwayne Johnson is inactive as a wrestler. He's came back from retirement. He appeared this year in April at WrestleMania XXX. He wrestled at WrestleMania 29 last year. He's listed as a current WWE wrestler here, go to "D". starship.paint ~ regal 11:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I would support the creation of a direct disambiguation page for The Rock, but not the proposed redirect. The fact that the percentage of views directed toward the person has, by the nominator's own figures, significantly declined in just one year suggests that the person is already declining in relative popularity - reader interest in other uses of the phrase is growing faster than reader interest in the person. We would be wise to avoid WP:RECENTISM and note the significant number of other, older and more historically significant uses. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
NorthBySouthBaranof, one reason why the % of views has declined is that more links have been added to the disambiguation page. My previous calculation in 2013 did not take into account any of "the Rocks" or Niue (which was probably not present in the disambiguation page) or the Rock (film) (which was in the disambiguation page, seems to be one that I missed out, sorry) and more. Adding Niue and the film (two of the most viewed alternatives) to the old count means that the old count was actually 71.26%. Naturally, since there were more pages added to Rock, the old count is definitely lower than 71.26%. starship.paint ~ regal 08:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Which would mean there are even more known and significant uses of the term than there were a year ago. Similarly, this suggests the phrase should not be a redirect but should be a disambiguation page. A Google search for the phrase is by no means overwhelmingly dominated by Dwayne Johnson — I get a pizza place, a radio station, a church and a movie on the first page, among others. There are enough known and significant uses to support a separate and complete disambiguation page just for the phrase itself, and I agree that it should be split from "Rock" and would support a topline "The Rock usually refers to" including Dwayne Johnson, the film The Rock and Alcatraz Island. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The disambiguation with topline is the minimum I'm willing to accede to. Naturally, other than "the Rock"s, all of "the Rocks" cannot remain at Rock but should move to "the Rock"? starship.paint ~ regal 08:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - per NorthBySouthBaranof's sound reasoning. Vsmith (talk) 11:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: no clear primary target. Although Dwayne Johnson has more page views in general, the amount of views comming from this page in particular is unknown. NorthBySouthBaranof's argument about avoiding WP:RECENTISM is also substantial. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 12:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • disambiguate, obviously Rock is already a large and sloppy disambig page, and "the rock" is better served by a separate disambiguation. Johnson gets a lot more hits, but it's unclear how many of those are found through searching for "the rock" alone; I think we serve our readers better by not bowing to his immediate fame and making the disambiguation the primary target, but in any case, some disambig page is in order. Mangoe (talk) 12:46, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support The Rock is not a WP:BROADCONCEPT, so the question here is whether Johnson is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. It has already been mentioned that he may not have "long-term significance". OTOH, a case could be made that he, currently, is looked for "more likely than all the other topics combined". We have a borderline case here. How about a compromise? Seeing as Johnson is currently hot, we redirect to him, without prejudice to a later change to a disambiguation page. Usage changes with time, it seems only proper that disambiguation should reflect this.
If that finds no consensus, then this should be a disambiguation page. Paradoctor (talk) 13:02, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The statistics given here are incomplete, they are missing several "The Rock"s that were found at "Rock" (though considering that it was a joint disambiguation page of "The Rock" and "Rock", complete statistics should be given, to ensure you're not just missing things because the entry is written poorly) -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 03:26, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I used everything that had "the Rock" in it. I didn't use anything without the "the". starship.paint ~ regal 11:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, since it was a joint disambiguation page, the entry won't necessarily say "The Rock", it will just assume that it is a joint disambiguation page, so won't say whether it's "Rock" or "The Rock"; like Corregidor, etc. which are "The Rock", so full statistics would show these currently missing stats. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 01:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice "The Rock" was overdue for its own disambiguation page, now available at The Rock (disambiguation). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paradoctor (talk • contribs) 13:02, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The examples at WP:MINORDETAILS all involve disambiguation of only a handful of terms. Between them, Rock and The Rock contain 96 entries. Even if you chose to ignore WP:PTM, WP:DPAGEs "inconveniently long" clearly applies here. Paradoctor (talk) 21:16, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opppose There are lots of things that are equally associated with The Rock other than Dwayne Johnson (and don't get me wrong, big fan of The People's Champion here). However having said that, things like Alcatraz, Newfoundland (without Labrador), that movie with Nicolas Cage, and that monolith south of Spain are equally referred to by the title The Rock, I don't see any of these items as being more primary than the other. Google hits are skewed, as Dwayne Johnson is huge on the internet (seriously, his Facebook posts are awesome), but being big on the internet does not make one a primary topic. As for page stats, sure people have interest in him, and search for him by his pseudonym, but heaven forbid someone come to Wikipedia in search for information about Dwayne Johnson, and find a DAB page and be given the opportunity to learn about something other than wrestling, or an actor, or an acting wrestler (or wrestling actor). In short, no it shouldn't be a redirect, The Rock (disambiguation) → The Rock, if you smell what the Kelapstick is cooking. --kelapstick(bainuu) 20:16, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and retarget to The Rock (disambiguation) - what 'The Rock' means to someone will very much depend on the place they live in. To most in the UK, for example, 'The Rock' would be taken to refer to The Rock of Gibraltar. The Whispering Wind (talk) 01:25, 3 August 2014 (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.

Membrane Theory

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 August 13#Membrane Theory

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_27&oldid=1136083291"