Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 September 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 7[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 7, 2014.

Nordkorea[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. --BDD (talk) 16:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No affinity for German. - TheChampionMan1234 23:51, 7 September 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.

北韩[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 October 22#北韩

Kommunismus[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. It is worth noting that only the first of these redirects was actually tagged for RfD, so they could not have been deleted without further discussion after being tagged even if consensus went that way (which it didn't here). Thryduulf (talk) 15:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

General topic with no affiliation for any language. - TheChampionMan1234 23:27, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment – What do you mean "General topic with no affiliation for any language"? Kommunismus applies in multiple languages, with the primary language given being German. Could you elaborate? Dustin (talk) 00:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dustin V. S.'s question. The language which these words are in has historical significance specific to the language. Steel1943 (talk) 00:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all three. Marx, and Engels, wrote the Communist Manifesto, in English, while living in London, didn't they? Certainly he is buried in Highgate Cemetery in northwest London. I would guess that Kommunismus is a back formation and not a particularly useful one on the English language Wikipedia. I could be wrong, though... but I think he had a lot of trouble even getting it published in German. There is no particular affinity to German. The "-i" and "-isme" forms are simply wrong. Si Trew (talk) 06:31, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
fwiw, a/c the WP article: "The Communist Manifesto was first published (in German) in London by a group of German political refugees in 1848. It was also serialised at around the same time in a German-language London newspaper, the Deutsche Londoner Zeitung. The first English translation was produced by Helen Macfarlane in 1850," — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 04:26, 21 October 2014
Comment As a perverse inverse, we don't call Engels Fred English, for example. It's fair to call a book Das Kapital ("On Capital", or perhaps "On Capitalism"; variously translated) but I think this pushes it a bit too far, in my opinion. Si Trew (talk) 14:07, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Steel1943. Even if it's a back formation, there's a clear link between the German language and the concept of communism. --BDD (talk) 16:10, 9 October 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.

Islamic State[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 Islamic state (disambiguation). JohnCD (talk) 12:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From 2007 to 2014, this redirect pointed to Islamic state, an article on the general concept of the form of government. Following the rise of one particular entity, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, there has been much back and forth revising of the redirect to point to that entity, the disambiguation page Islamic state (disambiguation), and the original usage. As there have been numerous uses of the phrase historically, I believe that pointing to one particular organization is POV, as it suggests that Wikipedia recognizes some unique legitimacy to their usage of it, and as it occurs only in the context of events within the past few months, is an exercise in WP:RECENTISM. I propose restoring the status quo ante, and further note that pursuant to WP:CONSENSUS, an absence of consensus as to a change away from the original longstanding usage requires reversion to that usage. bd2412 T 21:32, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Redirect should be to the all-inclusive Islamic state (disambiguation) page, where the reader would choose exactly what he wants to read. werldwayd (talk) 22:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We're here to serve and to make life easy for readers. This article will be a popular search at the moment. I suspect a substantial tranche of readers seeking the ISIS article will put Islamic state into the search box. Whilst I agree that there is recentism in giving that article pre-eminence for that search term we need to recognise the reality of how readers most likely are using the search engine. I suggest a reasonable compromise is for it to redirect to Islamic state (disambiguation). DeCausa (talk) 22:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have no objection to a redirect to Islamic state (disambiguation), as the capitalized term may refer to any entity that has in the past so titled itself. bd2412 T 22:22, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Thanks bd2412 T. I find werldwayd's argument plausible, but I am neutral at this point until more arguments from informed editors with cons and pros are presented. Worldedixor (talk) 22:34, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Islamic state (disambiguation) sounds good to me. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 04:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL/ISIS). Remember that Islamic state (no cap "S") is already a generic article about Islamic state governments. Yes, I do think that users that type "Islamic State" into the search box should be redirected to the group that has officially adopted this name since June. I don't think the other "Islamic State of..." articles are of enough significance to have a this come to disambiguation. Also, it's important the intra-article links from the groups proper name should redirect to the proper page, without having to use [[Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant|Islamic State]]. As of today this redirect has no "what links here" in article space.~Technophant (talk) 16:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Islamic state (disambiguation) - There have been lots of entities known as "Islamic State" (capital S) in history. While ISIS is in currently in the news, the encyclopedia should be written with a historical perspective. Retargetting to ISIS now is WP:RECENTISM. Perhaps with time it will become clear that ISIS is the primary topic of "Islamic State", but I don't think that can be concluded from a couple months of heavy news coverage. TDL (talk) 17:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Target to ISIL/ISIS. Googling "Islamic State" -wikipedia and it's ten out of ten results for the militant group. Readers who type in "Islamic State" expecting to get something other than ISIS are mistyping. We can't protect readers from their own mistakes! This is the hottest topic in the news and we are deliberately steering readers to a place other than the one they quite obviously want to go to. That this idea is even being considered represents DAB worship gone mad. Somebody needs to read WP:RECENTISM instead of simply citing it. Hint: It is not an essay about redirects or primary topics. La crème de la crème (talk) 02:55, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice User:Kauffner. Now perhaps I could suggest some reading for you? How about WP:SOCK? TDL (talk) 04:00, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • ISIS as per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:DIFFCAPS Red Slash 03:15, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except it's not, per the several failed move requests at ISIL/ISIS's talk page. -- 70.51.46.146 (talk) 09:06, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the disambiguation page, it's too similar to a more important topic (Islamic state), and a generic name such as this shouldn't redirect to one example of it, even if it's the topic that readers are most likely to be looking for right now. Withdrawn (talk) 21:09, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There was an interesting half-hour programme on the BBC World Service this morning, about exactly this controversial naming – at about 2am GMT (UTC) this morning (Saturday), interviewing BBC editors and journalists who have been having this trouble with what to call them.
It was basically agreed, as far as I heard it, that the "Islamic State" call themselves as such as they do not recognise international borders, there is "only one state" under the sight of God/Allah. I don't want to offend anyone's views, just this naming stuff: if the BBC can't make up its mind what to call them then I am not sure what hope we amateurs have.
I note we do have Islamic state in Palestine as a redirect to Hamas Covenant. There is also Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (of not in) which R's to where you imagine but I suppose should be encompassed by this discussion. ISIS is a redirect to DAB at Isis (disambiguation): whereas Isis is the Egyptian/Greek/Roman god of health, marriage and love.I agree that Islamic State seems overwhelmingly the most likely search term for this organisation. Si Trew (talk) 06:53, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is just a redirect, so what they call themselves and what we should call them is not at issue. The question is, “What are readers typing in “Islamic State” likely to be seeking?” If they go to the trouble of capitalizing the "I" and the “S” and lower casing everything else, the likelihood that they are seeking the militant group is nearly 100 percent. La crème de la crème (talk) 05:39, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be a fairly important topic right now, though I don't have a view on the redirect but agree with TDL, and I don't think it's appropriate that a community banned user should be having a significant say. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:19, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In ictu oculi This user hasn't been confirmed to be a sock. It seems inappropriate to make such accusations here.~Technophant (talk) 21:14, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The account has already acknowledged the SPI. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:19, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. ~Technophant (talk) 23:30, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. ~Technophant (talk) 23:30, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ~Technophant (talk) 23:30, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. ~Technophant (talk) 23:32, 16 September 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.

Alberta Arts District[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 Alberta Arts District (Portland, Oregon). The discussion consensus was that the targeted article was the most appropriate destination. However, after the page move this is also clearly a good search term. Any ambiguity can be resolved by editorial means with a post-RFD hatnote but none seems obvious. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 21:27, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When I hear "Alberta Arts District", I don't think Portland, but Calgary or Edmonton which are actually in Alberta. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:57, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you google "Alberta Arts District" the first two pages (at least) are about Portland, OR neighborhood. If you google "Alberta Arts District canada" they are also mostly about Portland, OR —Gaff ταλκ 11:57, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Alberta Arts District calgary" search doesn't yield much either. —Gaff ταλκ 11:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - all the search results I can find refer to this area of Portland, Oregon despite what the nominator may think. Thryduulf (talk) 12:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT Keeping with convention, target page moved to Alberta Arts District (Portland, Oregon) —Gaff ταλκ 18:31, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I am probably putting the cart before the horse here, but has this anything to do with Pok Pok, also at RfD? I have no idea if that is in the "Alberta Arts District" hence the point; was it sneakily added? I checked the talk at Pok Pok and it is just more restaurant reviews in local press, that is a separate point, but I just wondered if somehow this added legitimacy. It is not WP:WORLDWIDE. I have no idea if it falls in the "Alberta Arts District" or not. There is a nice arts district in Szolnok, but we haven't Szolnok Arts District. In Stevenage we called the town centre underpasses the "arts district". Mostly graffiti, we never got a Banksy! Si Trew (talk) 23:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure what WP:WORLDWIDE has to do with this? If the subject is notable enough for coverage on Wikipedia (and nobody afaik has questioned this) then it is eligible to have redirects pointing to it from terms that are in use, even if those terms are only used in one variety of English. WP:WORLDWIDE is about avoiding systematic bias by having coverage from a global perspective in articles about global concepts (e.g. Milk, Gravity, World War I, etc). Thryduulf (talk) 07:07, 18 September 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_September_7&oldid=1138579933"