Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 February 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 17[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 17, 2015.

The Secret Killer[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 speedy retarget; bot error repaired by Cavarrone. (non-admin closure) Ivanvector (talk) 19:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly this redirect should not be here. Did the creator intend to mean Evil eye? Even still, it would be vague. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete it seems to be a 1965 French thriller film according to IMdb. --Lenticel (talk) 00:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed, keep, this redirect was wrongly moved by bot, it is an alternative title of Eyeball (film). The article about the film was originally placed at Eyeball, then an editor moved the page at Eyeball (film) and redirected Eyeball to Eye, forgetting to fix the wrong redirect pages. --Cavarrone 06:30, 18 February 2015 (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.

Facet (anatomy)[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 facet (disambiguation). (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 18:27, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually seems to primarily refer to a certain type of spinal joint, according to Google. This creates a WP:SURPRISE. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete per nom -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 06:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak retarget to zygapophysial joint, also called "facet joint", although "joint" is not in the redirect's title. I don't know what this was supposed to have had to do with the eye. Ivanvector (talk) 19:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ohh, the history is informative. This is another Twinkle-misled redirect to section nominations; I have fixed it. A facet is one of the eyes which make up a compound eye in insects. Disambiguation might be better here. It's not mentioned at Eye but could be very easily. Ivanvector (talk) 19:42, 23 February 2015 (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.

Balboa, Oregón[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) 16:33, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – meaningless redirect. Google search does not reveal an entity that could be designated as "Balboa, Oregón". The target article does not mention "Balboa" (and did not at the time the redirect was created).  --Lambiam 21:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - According to Google, there is a Balboa street in Oregon but come on, that's a bit too specific. --Lenticel (talk) 00:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there seem to be a few things this could refer to. Lenticel found one; there is also a Lake Balboa, Oregon but we don't have an article (but do have Lake Balboa, Los Angeles), and there may be a business called Balboa which operates in Oregon. I also tried looking on es.wiki for possible international targets but "Oregón" specifically refers to the U.S. state, and there just doesn't seem to be a match. Ivanvector (talk) 19:35, 23 February 2015 (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.

Tea boy[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 dabify. --BDD (talk) 16:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The term "tea boy" is probably archaic, but when I think of the phrase, I associate it with a low or entry level job in a large company, analogous with working in a mail room, with the hope of progressing to a more senior position. Perhaps a standalone article should exist, perhaps it should redirect somewhere else, but I think where it currently goes to is inappropriate. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, from the article: "In 2007, it was reported that in Glasgow the term Tea Boy had become an increasingly popular alternative to "ned"." --AmaryllisGardener talk 14:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But from a random reliable source, I read "They ran the tape back and forth, pushed record and play, kept session notes, made tea. You've probably heard the demeaning expression tea boy used - it comes from those days" - which is AFAIK is talking about a tape op and hence nothing to do with Scottish slang and considerably older. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment isn't this a male counterpart to Tea lady? The google book search that I did seems to tell me that he's a manservant that brings tea. --Lenticel (talk) 00:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think the connotation is more that it is a menial job or, sometimes, a sinecure. I did wonder whether a Tee boy had ever been punned to mean a caddy, but it seems not. (Teeboy is a clothing brand, variously hyphenated.)
That being said I don't like that the lede of Tea lady says that it is her "sole" job to make tea, which to me sounds rather patronising or demeaning and the word "sole" should be cut - especially since the article discusses the fact that the "tea lady"'s other unofficial job is the upkeep of the grapevine (gossip), something not attributed to tea boys. Si Trew (talk) 00:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate - none of these uses seem to be primary to the others, and all seem valid enough. Different uses could retarget to hooligan, McJob (or whatever we decided on that one), or as the male counterpart to a tea lady. Ivanvector (talk) 00:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm OK with that. I note, thankfully, we don't have tea person. Si Trew (talk) 03:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with a dabify. --Lenticel (talk) 00:33, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I drafted a dab page in place. I think that perhaps my third link (to McJob) should be removed - I didn't find any sources for this usage and it's a bit awkward anyway. Ivanvector (talk) 05:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would say yes. Ivanvector (talk) 16:49, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:07, 17 February 2015 (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.

Authoritarian cultist[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) 16:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think it is the same thing. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Typology of cults is a redlink. Did you mean something else? Ivanvector (talk) 16:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment possibly (though it's not mentioned there), but is it the cultist who is being authoritarian, or the cult? mutatis mutandis, does an authoritarian historian mean an historian who is rather high-handed, or one who specialises in the history of authoritarianism? Si Trew (talk) 02:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if that's what I meant. But it will do as a target. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC).
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Authoritarianism isn't mentioned much at Classifications of religious movements. Do we have any evidence whether "authoritarian cultist" is a phrase in usage or if it was made up?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:23, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not a plausible search term for the one mention BDD has noticed. Siuenti (talk) 23:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My concerns from the relisting comment remain. --BDD (talk) 16:29, 25 February 2015 (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.

FIFO[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 Moved the DAB page to FIFO. This is already done, but consensus here supports it. There was also a discussion at ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 16:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday I created fit in or fuck off which is also known by the FIFO acronym. I noticed that there were three other articles using the same acronym, yet FIFO went to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FIFO_%28computing_and_electronics%29&oldid=644966399 (since then renamed from "FIFO" to "FIFO (computing and electronics)"). It already had redirects to 2 other FIFO articles in the header and I had now added a 4th one "fit in or fuck off". It was crying out for a proper disambig page for FIFO. This I set up and I also included a link to the Wiktionary page witch gives a general definition as well.

However User:BD2412 has just moved "FIFO (computing)" to "FIFO" which creates quite a mess and obviously obliterates the disambig page.

Doing a popularity analysis of the 4 "FIFO articles:

It looks to me like blatant favoritism for "FIFO" to go to a technical article on computing and electronics when the term has several other more everyday uses including the Wiktionary definition. In any event you would expect anything with four possible meanings to have a disambiguation page. Penbat (talk) 20:17, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and re-establish the disambig page. How many links are affected should not be considered ahead of what the content implications are, and not having a disambiguation page means some people will not be able to find the article they are looking for. I'm not sure whether "fit in or fuck off" actually passes GNG, but that's another discussion for another venue. Formerip (talk) 20:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold on. Before we run in any rash directions, we need to examine the edit history here. "FIFO' was established as an article on the computing sense in 2002. In 2009, it was moved without discussion to FIFO (computing) and disambiguated; this disambiguation was immediately reverted with a request for discussion. This situation remained stable for six years, until yesterday, when it was again moved without discussion. Whatever the merits of changing the established structure may be, this change was highly disruptive because it broke a large number of incoming links. Although these links now seem to have been fixed, we should still consider whether there is a basis to change what has effectively been the status quo for the past thirteen years. bd2412 T 20:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  • After reviewing the numbers, I support having the disambiguation page at FIFO; please note that it is always best to fix incoming links before disambiguating, in cases like this. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
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.
  • I know I'm too late, but I want to say thank you to all for a well considered, and well argued, discussion. The best of Wikipedia. Si Trew (talk) 21:44, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Evil-disposed[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) 16:29, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, Evil disposed is not a legal term that means the same thing as Malice in law or something related to Malice in legal sense. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Si Trew, that makes little sense to me. The target does not discuss it or anything. --Mr. Guye (talk) 01:00, 18 February 2015 (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.

Malice (law) (disambiguation)[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 speedy delete per criterion G7 by Cryptic. Steel1943 (talk) 03:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Malice (law) is the only legal use listed at the target dab page. This is a highly unlikely search term, and misleading as long as there's only one usage. --BDD (talk) 20:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I was not very good with redirects back in March. I don't remember why I made that. Delete. --Mr. Guye (talk) 21:29, 17 February 2015 (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.

Ontario, CA[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. Consensus is divided between Keep and retarget to Ontario (disambiguation) with both sides presenting good arguments. As this has been open for almost a month now, I am closing as no consensus (defaults to Keep). (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 16:56, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The main reason to have the ,CA at the end would be to disambiguate it from other places with the same name; however, in this case, the main other place with the same name is also in a region refered to by the CA abbreviation - Ontario, Canada. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:57, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Ontario, CA" fails WP:PRECISE, so should not be a redirect to the California article. Ontario (disambiguation) has more than 2 entries, so TWODABS does not apply. There is no suggestion on creating a new disambiguation with only two entries. "Ontario" in California is not the primary topic of "Ontario", so it also fails primarity. WP:CRITERIA-failing redirects should necessarily point to disambiguation pages. Further, this is not the US Wikipedia, it's the English Wikipedia, so we should keep a WP:WORLDVIEW, where world postal addresses can use two-letter country codes, which would not be the US-state-code. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 04:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—per BDD's reasoning. If others feel it's confusing, a hatnote at the top of the target saying, "Ontario, CA redirects here. For the Canadian province, see Ontario," should be sufficient. Imzadi 1979 → 08:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Ontario (disambiguation). I disagree that a reader using this term is "probably" looking for the Californian city. Where is the backup evidence that shows that to be the case? I suspect that there is a good chance that readers worldwide when they type or see Ontario, CA (CA, as noted, being the country code for Canada) there are just as likely to be looking for the Canadian jurisdiction of 12,851,821 people (which contains Canada's capital and its most populous city) versus the California town of 167,500 (which, ironically, happens to be named after the Canadian province). Unless we have good evidence that shows that readers are clearly looking for the city in California when they type Ontario, CA, then redirect it to the DAB page. Why we would jump to assumptions about what people are looking for, and then rely on a hatnote to redirect readers again, is beyond me. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:57, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm jumping to assumptions, I've at least started from evidence. As presented above, no redirects of this form point to Canadian territories or provinces. There's an entire redirect scheme based on US postal codes—I believe bots made some of them—because these are common ways of referring to those places. Additionally, looking over incoming mainspace links to this shortcut, most, if not all, appear to refer to the Californian city. That's pretty concrete evidence that people intended the Californian city when they wrote "Ontario, CA". --BDD (talk) 18:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Really, an "entire redirect scheme" created mostly by bots more than 11 years ago is evidence? Seriously? You think the best way to serve Wikipedia readers in 2015 is based on what bot users more than a decade ago were doing? And the maintenance links are merely evidence that wikilinks intended for a Canadian province and incorrectly pointing to a california city have likely been corrected over the years -- of course there are a handful of links pointing to the California city, because unlike the Canadian province there was no compelling need to fix those. The lack of incorrect redirects is not evidence, merely a testament that Wiki-gnomes are hard at work. Unless we have more than your hunch that users worldwide use postal abbreviations the same way U.S. residents do, we should redirect to the DAB page. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes. The fact thats it was uncontroversial enough to be carried out by bots, that it's so long-standing, and that it doesn't seem to have been contested since all suggest that it's a very robust redirect scheme. It's pretty common in American English to use these abbreviations, even in speech—they're much more than just administrative codes. Unless you can demonstrate that readers are likely to use ISO 3166 codes as natural disambiguation, I rather think your position is the much more speculative one. --BDD (talk) 14:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Who's going to "contest" tens of thousands of obscure postal abbreviation redirects done by a bot? Honestly. That's an even weaker argument than your one about the absence of incorrect maintenance redirects.

You've completely misunderstood my position. I never said readers are likely to use the country code, although it's common knowledge that country codes are widely used in Europe and other parts of the globe. I said that there is no evidence either way that our worldwide readership would more likely read CA as California or Canada, and therefore the redirect should point to the neutral DAB page. If you think, as you've suggested, that most of our readers are more likely to think of the California city, and that the redirect should point to a specific location, then please provide that evidence. Eleven-year-old redirects created by a bot are not evidence of what our readers are most likely to be looking for, for the many many reasons listed above.

I don't need to provide evidence because I am saying that there likely isn't any meaningful evidence either way. Americans use postal abbreviations. Europeans use country codes. For some reason, you think the actions of a bot in July 2004 is also relevant. Beyond that, we don't otherwise know how our readers are most likely to interpret or use "Ontario, CA". For that reason, it should point to the DAB. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:39, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I have misunderstood your position, but the fact that you think these forms are "obscure" suggests you misunderstand how common they are. Is it possible that for the past 10 years or so that this redirect has been confusing and misleading readers? Sure, but I think it's much more likely that it's been functioning as intended. The simpler interpretation makes more sense to me. --BDD (talk) 16:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Common because a bot created tens of thousands of them over the course of a few days in July 2004. Common ≠ proof of usefulness or that they were all correct in the first place. Or that they are not obscure. I didn't say that the redirect has been confusing people for 10 years. Now that the issue has been raised, I have simply said that absent any concrete evidence that most of our users would assume that "Ontario, CA" refers to the California city, we shouldn't be relying on hunches and assumptions and we should point the redirect to the DAB (especially when the other potential target article gets way more traffic than the article on the California city). The Occam's razor principle, to which you point, actually supports pointing it to the DAB page - the fewer assumptions that are made, the better. I keep asking for evidence that readers would be looking for the California city, and nobody seems to be able to provide it. Which says to me that we shouldn't be making assumptions about what most of our readers will think or need, given that we know for a fact that "CA" can and does mean different things in different parts of the world, and we should point readers to the page which is going to give them the full menu of options. In your original comment, you stated that redirecting to the DAB was an alternative. I'm simply saying it's the best alternative, given the absence of compelling evidence either way. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for being overly argumentative, and I certainly don't mean to be disrespectful. I'm just a bit troubled by assumptions being made about what readers are most likely to do. I just think we normally require proof of primary use/reader usage, there is no real proof here except what a bot did in 2004, and as such the simplest and most straightforward approach is to redirect to the DAB page. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I think I see the problem. Do you think I'm relying entirely on the bot action to say that these forms are common ways of referring to places in the US? That's putting the cart before the horse. I don't know how common such a practice is in Canada; do people refer to "Toronto, ON" or "Saint John, NB"? Like in speech, not just in addressing letters? This is common for American settlements, so (not because) the bot created those redirects. Regular Google searches or Google Books should provide evidence. Try "ontario CA"—I had to use Internet Explorer to avoid both personalized and localized results, though I admit I'm not positive I've avoided the latter. In the first two pages, there's only one result for the Canadian province, and it's not even until the second page. Books results are more mixed.
Retargeting to the dab doesn't do harm, sure, but as Steel1943 is saying below, when there are only two uses for an ambiguous phrase, it does make sense to choose the one that's more likely to be searched. Like it or not, the status quo rules here when there isn't evidence that it should change. Seriously, find me even one instance of someone expressing confusion over this redirect from the past 10 years and I may rethink this. If it had been pointing at a dab for 10 years, I would probably want to maintain that as well (absent evidence of confusion). --BDD (talk) 17:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I completely understand how postal abbreviations can be commonly used in the U.S.. I wasn't saying that you were using bot actions to prove U.S. usage, but rather that you were making assumptions about usage worldwide based on the 2004 actions of a bot (if the bot did it in 2004, and no one challenged it, then it must be what most readers are looking for). CA is also a country code, the web address for Canada, and ontario.ca is the government website in Ontario. There are a lot of real world examples of usage. You keep skipping over the issue. When you say "it does make sense to choose the one that's more likely to be searched", the one that's more likely to be searched is the unproven assumption you're making. You're jumpring to the that conclusion, and then poiting to a history of bot actions and redlinks as somehow demonmstrating real world usage. And "no one has taken issue with that in the past" can't possibly be the answer, because otherwise we'd never strive to improve Wikipedia (it's a full answer to most edits we make). What best serves our readers is the threshold we should be aiming for, not "I'm not aware of any past complaints....".

As for the Google searches, thank you. That's the first actual evidence of real orld usage supplied by anyone in this discussion. Everything else has been conjecture and "I'm not aware of any problems". Not particularly compelling, but that's the first substantive evidence that has been supplied, so that's helpful. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Ontario (disambiguation) as CA is the valid country code for Canada and people do use those codes. If this was the U.S. Wikipedia then it would make sense to keep the redirect as-is, but it isn't so redirecting to the disambiguation page makes more sense. Ca2james (talk) 18:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per reasonings of BDD & Imzadi1979. If this is such as an issue as BDD stated, why are those others redlinks? How often is the province of Ontario typed out Ontario, CA as compared to the city of Ontario?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redlinks are hardly determinative. The only reason this isn't a redlink itself is because a bot created it in July 2004, along with tens of thousands of other U.S. postal abbreviation redirects that same month. I find it hard to believe that we would make this decision based on which redirects bots created 11 years ago. We don't actually know "how often is the province of Ontario typed out Ontario, CA as compared to the city of Ontario" - that's the whole issue. Wikipedia serves a worldwide audience, and while CA is a postal abbreviation in the U.S., Europeans and others use country codes all the time. So again I ask, those who are guessing/speculating/hypothesizing that most Wikipedia users worldwide seeing Ontario, CA will think city in California, please provide some evidence to that effect. Absent any evidence, we should do what is best for our readers, which is to redirect to the DAB page.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On what basis do you say that it's the primary topic? Normally, when establishing the primary topic on Wikipedia we look to real-world usage. There is an onus to supply that evidence. If someone could actually compile such evidence, I'd love to see it, and I would happily change my position if it were conclusive. But instead we have a group of editors, mostly American it seems, who are saying that their own familiarity with U.S. postal abbreviations and a series of redirects created by a bot in 2004 are enough to establish the primary use. Seems very weak. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand how retargeting Ontario, CA to the disambiguation page Ontario (disambiguation) is going to help our readers in any way, given that the only two entries on the disambiguation page which the term "Ontario, CA" could refer are Ontario (at the top of the page) and Ontario, California (a little ways down the page). If readers don't know exactly what they were looking for, given the amount of entries on Ontario (disambiguation), redirecting there could confuse readers already confused to begin with. If a reader takes the time to type out the additional ", CA" in their search term, might as well retarget them to one or the other (Ontario or Ontario, California). And per BDD's findings, might as well leave the redirect as is, given that the status quo has titles ending with ", CA" targeting cities in California, such as San Diego, CA, Fresno, CA, and Bakersfield, CA. Steel1943 (talk) 17:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Who said readers don't know what they are looking for? And how is looking at a DAB page worse than redirecting them to the wrong page? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:28, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • See BDD's statement above about WP:TWODABS; it kind of sums up my point. The only other acceptable option I can see would be to turn Ontario, CA into a disambiguation page, but I would oppose that option per my previous statement. Steel1943 (talk) 17:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's the issue precisely. WP:TWODABS says a DAB isn't required where there is a primary use. Yet until now no one has brought forward any evidence of a primary use, except for some references to 2004 bot activities. After repeated requests, BDD actually came forward with some google search results (he's the only one - so thanks to him for that). It's two pages of Google search, so not exactly compelling, but he's the only one that has bothered to even do that. Everyone else is just guessing and assuming what the primary topic is, mostly American editors who seem to be assuming that everyone outside the U.S. reads "CA" the same way they do. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right, I agree with BDD's finds; it enforces what I thought was the case to begin with. Steel1943 (talk) 17:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. The fact that most of your argument was made on the basis of a hunch, before anyone supplied any actual evidence (even then, BDD looked at two pages of Google searches) is the problem. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for validating that my "hunches" match the facts. Anyways, my comments here are ending since you seem to have resorted to badgering me rather than continuing to prove your stance. Good day. Steel1943 (talk) 19:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Taking issue with the fact that your position wasn't substantiated (and still isn't, to be honest) is not badgering. But if failing to do this, and then misrepresenting my comments/making accusations, gives you an exit, then fine. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:20, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having an issue comprehending how you think I have not stated anything substantial to the discussion when I have stated that my comment is in line with another comment above that shows search results. I mean, what are you expecting me to say? Something creating that has absolutely nothing to do with the comments above? Good luck with that. Steel1943 (talk) 19:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What happened to your small text? I never said you had not stated anything substantial. Your point was potentially a valid one, but there was no evidence backing it up (the search results were supplied by BDD later, long after you'd taken the position that the California city was likely the primary topic). If you think BDD looking at two pages of Google searches validates your earlier comments after-the-fact, then you're entitled to your position, but my point was that everything you had said earlier was on the basis of a guess. Which is why I took issue with it in the first place. And I think it's a problem that so many people took a position here without any evidence to back them up (and the fact someone supplied a degree of evidence afterwards doesn't make it less problematic). All I expected, which I said before you even joined the discussion, was that there should be actual evidence of reader usage/primary topic if the redirect points to a specific article. I'm not sure why you find that so problematic. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:57, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Either way, I have nothing more to add to this discussion. (By the way, the small text stopped since you didn't use small text as well.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:06, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair too. I have nothing else to add as well, and apologies for beating a dead horse. An issue that is important to me isn't necessarily important to others. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: BDD's reasoning seems pretty solidly sound to me. It may be the ISO two letter code for Canada, but it's very rarely used in that context, if ever. Illegitimate Barrister 17:12, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know that? Country codes are routinely used in Europe. It's also the web domain for Canada, and ontario.ca is the website for provincial services in Ontario. So, tell me how you know that Ontario CA, or a variation thereof, is rarely used? Or are you just guessing? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No need to respond to my questions. Yours would appear to be the majority position. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:26, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BDD. bd2412 T 17:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Ontario (disambiguation) or weak retarget to Ontario. There is no doubt that Ontario, CA is ambiguous, I mean, who would even argue that? Searching from where I am (Toronto), "Ontario, CA" brings up a fairly even mix of Canadian and Californian links, however the Canadian links are official while the California links are travel guides. Even typing "ontario california" brings up the home page of the provincial government. I guess that means my search results shouldn't be counted on, but then neither should any of yours if you're within the United States. The lack of "CA" redirects to the other provinces is only evidence that there aren't places in California with the same names, or that if you were to type "Alberta, CA" in the search box, you would get to where you want to go pretty easily. As a resident of the Canadian province, it isn't particularly common here to use the CA construction when referring to ourselves or to other provinces, however it is quite common internationally to do so in my experience, as in giving someone my address to send me mail. My point here is that our arguments about what is the primary topic are likely to be flawed if we are basing them on internet search results, and in light of that I think it better to disambiguate. Ivanvector (talk) 17:44, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there is an Alberta, California, so why is there not an Alberta, CA? Ivanvector (talk) 17:45, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Probably because that's only a variant name. Whatever bot was making these redirects apparently wasn't operating as late as 2009, when Rockwood, California was created; I just created Rockwood, CA as a redirect. --BDD (talk) 19:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to the way postal abbreviations work. "Ontario, CA" refers to a city and state(/province [because provinces fall under this scheme as well]), not a state/province and country. You typically don't see "California, US" or a variant thereof. However, after reading this conversation, it seems that not everyone understands/knows this, and so it's reasonable to have a hatnote at Ontario, California guiding those users to the Canadian province, just in case. I decided to be WP:BOLD and add the hatnote myself, and hopefully all parties can at least be satisfied with this compromise. Tavix |  Talk  20:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"it seems that not everyone understands/knows this" Not one comment above suggests that to be the case. Some people simply do not share your opinion, and disagreeing with your assumptions doesn't mean they're unaware of basic facts.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
List of U.S. state abbreviations#Postal codes. Tavix |  Talk  01:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Um, okay. I think you've missed the point. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ontario, California seems to me (and entirely in my opinion) the primary usage of the term Ontario, CA. In general writing (and again, this is all personal experience) Canada is not abbreviated after the province in the same manner as USA, UK, etc. (I do understand that CA is the two letter abbreviation of Canada). Also typically (and originally being from Ontario) I have never actually seen in writing the province called Ontario, CA (that is not to say that it never has). Having said that, Ontario, California would often be called Ontario, CA, particularly when sending mail there. I think a hat note (which has been added) is sufficient to direct the people who would look up the province by Ontario, CA (of which I doubt there will be many since the province sits at the non-disambiguated name).--kelapstick(bainuu) 18:50, 4 March 2015 (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.

Canvey Island Independent Party[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) 16:43, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading redirect to Independent politician; while it's a small local party, I don't think its members can reasonably be considered independent merely because their party's name contains that word. Huon (talk) 00:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a fairly standard group of local independents who have formed a local independent grouping and have set up a political party to enable a shared platform and ballot paper identifier. As such the redirect to independent politicians is suitable. This is of course unless I have misinterpreted the name and the party advocate Canvey Island as an independent political and sovereign entity. If the article can be expanded o cover the Canvey Island Independent Party in a meaningful and verifiably notable way then please go ahead and do so. Sport and politics (talk) 01:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, presumably not discussed at target. Siuenti (talk) 23:23, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak retarget to Canvey Island#Governance or delete per WP:REDLINK. The party is mentioned at that section, which also says that 16 of its 17 councillors belong to the party. Setting aside that the idea of a party of independent politicians is a paradox, that level of success makes me think that the subject is notable enough for its own article. With respect, the redirect is unacceptable as is, since Canvey Island isn't mentioned at all at Independent politician; it will only disappoint and confuse readers looking for the CIIP. --BDD (talk) 14:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:REDLINK, per BDD. Also the redirect is misleading; if a group of politicians have come together under a common political banner with the purpose of advancing a common cause, they are by definition not independent. Even if they put "independent" in their name. My province has a "progressive conservative" party; names are meaningless. Ivanvector (talk) 17:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC) We also have None of the Above; politics is silly[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/2015_February_17&oldid=1142587224"