Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 January 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 9[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 9, 2015.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all.[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. Arguments to keep were significantly stronger, and while this may not be an especially likely search term, it's unambiguous—a reader who did search for this term would undoubtedly be looking for the target article. --BDD (talk) 15:10, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Articles should have the subjects name in the title, not the content of the article. This redirect is simply a reprint of the Pledge of Allegiance, which is a bit unnecessary. There's also a character limit surpassed here as well. Aerospeed (Talk) 23:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I created the other redirect which was deleted for some reason. By that logic, this redirect too must be deleted. It is rather long, and I realize that it makes little sense to expect a reader to type all of this out, punctuation and all, and make use of this redirect. A logical redirect is I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, but beyond that, there appears to be no good reason to keep. Dustin (talk) 23:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as too long. Legacypac (talk) 01:58, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the target is correct, it's not misleading or harmful in any other way and takes people using this to the content they are looking for. "Too long" is not a valid reason to delete anything. Thryduulf (talk) 15:37, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The historical versions were deleted for this same reason. This redirect is almost inconceivable. See my suggestion. Dustin (talk) 16:27, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another thing to note is that the punctuation doesn't even appear to be correct, which just further lowers the likelihood that a user will use this redirect. Dustin (talk) 17:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is correct, not harmful, and possibly useful if one has the text of the pledge and no other knowledge. The fact that it's not likely to be used by some experienced Wikipedia editors is beside the point. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 02:24, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. "Too long" isn't necessary a good reason to delete since that means that someone may look it up, and incorrect punctuation allows others to look it up who may not type the correct punctuation, making it useful on both counts. Steel1943 (talk) 04:27, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I added a tag for {{R from quote}} -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 05:33, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I don't see the point of this given that the first GHit on the phrase is (unsurprisingly) our pledge article. The notion that it helps navigation in any way is somewhere between questionable and absurd. Seyasirt (talk) 23:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep plausible search term Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:00, 15 January 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.

Shittsburgh[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) 19:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not an established nickname. The term does not appear in the targeted article or in the List of city nicknames in Pennsylvania. Created by a confirmed (now banned) sockpuppet. Phleg1 (talk) 15:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as an implausible redirect Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:20, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, this is offensive but it is established (22k ghits, this redirect has existed since 2007, this usenet message dates from 1995, etc) and plausible - this is basic juvenile humour, and in almost every month gets more hits than background noise. So, given that the target is correct and it is not misleading there is not actually any reason to delete. Thryduulf (talk) 17:25, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • And "New York Shitty" gets 82k Google hits; "Suckramento" gets 83k; "Shitcago" 38k; "Penisylvania" 113k; "West Vagina" 40k -- but reliable evidence that Shittsburgh and these other potty portmanteaus are "established" is slim to nonexistent. Would they be useful redirects? I don't see how. Phleg1 (talk) 16:20, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete an inappropriate redirect. If the city was a BLP it would be gone. Legacypac (talk) 22:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Firstly, there is a very good reason that BLP only applies to people, and because Pittsburgh is not a person (living or otherwise) the BLP is entirely irrelevant to whether this redirect should be kept or not. Secondly, see WP:RNEUTRAL - even if this were a BLP a redirect to the article would not necessarily be in violation of it. Thirdly, just because you say something is "inappropriate" does not automatically make it so - please explain why you think this should be deleted with reference to relevant facts. Thryduulf (talk) 22:19, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, Piers Moron redirects to Piers Morgan#Ian Hislop and Carter-Fuck redirects to Carter-Ruck#Critism, for example (although in both cases it might be better to retarget to Recurring_in-jokes_in_Private_Eye#Names intentionally misspelled or misstated). Peter Carter-Ruck is dead, but Morgan isn't. Si Trew (talk) 11:23, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per User:Thryduulf and the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_November_2#Shottingham. Si Trew (talk) 11:13, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that Shottingham (and Piers Moron, Carter-Fuck) are actually discussed and sourced in their target articles. Phleg1 (talk) 16:21, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Bottom line: Nobody is going to search for Pittsburgh by typing Shittsburgh, and nobody looking for information specifically about the term Shittsburgh (not that anyone would) will find it in the target article. So the redirect is useless. Abusive but useful can be OK; abusive and useless isn't. Phleg1 (talk) 16:36, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Shottingham has the RS'd content because of the RfD I mentioned above. So, here's an RS for you (well, a print newspaper with >30,000 circulation) that nicely demonstrates that the term is in popular use:
  • Breen, Mike (9 October 2013). "Hate, with a Passion". Cincinnati CityBeat. Retrieved 3 January 2014. But what followed was a sickeningly hypnotic barrage of pure Twitter hatred, born from passion but spiraling out of control. There were the heated defensive posts that painted Pittsburgh — sorry, "Shittsburgh," as it was christened by many Reds fans that night — as a hellhole full of inbred brutes
There are plenty of other mentions on the Internet, but not many RS. Si Trew (talk) 17:44, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you look at the traffic statistics you will see that people actually do use this redirect (by definition therefore not useless) - in January-August/September in most years it gets significantly more hits each month (up to 25) than can be accounted for by bots alone (around 3-4 per month). Curiously it's much quieter October-December than the rest of the year - does this activity pattern correlate with a sports season perhaps? Or is Pittsburgh simply a nicer place to be during its autumn/winter (I've never been)? Thryduulf (talk) 18:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I went looking for a RS, there are none. I thought I found one at ESPN but is was in the facebook comments. Just because something exists does not mean it should be in Wikipedia. Let the Urban Dictionary cover it. Legacypac (talk) 18:04, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you saying the reference I gave is not RS? Si Trew (talk) 18:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't think this redirect is going to help any readers find the targeted article, which is the point of redirects. If you are looking for "Shittsburgh", you probably already know it means "Pittsburgh" (even if you don't know, it is pretty obvious). If the target article talked about the history of the term, different story, but it doesn't mention the term at all. (I agree with other commenters that offensiveness is not a valid argument for deletion.) Also, I suspect the vast majority of the people who use the redirect already know what it means, they are just looking for a chuckle in seeing if Wikipedia recognises the term. SJK (talk) 23:16, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. (ec) I found RS for a couple of those suggested above:
The fact is, these terms are used. I don't know if redirects are the best solution, since we'd have to add WP:UNDUE content to the target articles – the "List of nicknames" articles would seem a better bet – but they should be mentioned somewhere. I think it's unreasonable to expect an accurate etymology for an obvious slang term like "Shittsburgh", which is probably as old as Pittsburgh itself. Si Trew (talk) 23:37, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I also think it's telling that the RS are from papers in the areas so-named. Si Trew (talk) 23:52, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as inappropriate and unhelpful. Tavix |  Talk  22:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: It looks like consensus is leaning towards deletion here. Previous outcomes aren't binding, but for me, at least, they're reason to pause and see if stronger consensus can emerge. I wonder if a list like List of disparaging city nicknames would be viable. It may fail WP:SYNTH or WP:SAL, but it could be a target for such redirects that would allay concerns about the fundamentally disparaging nature of such names (which no one contests).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the only possible value in this redirect is for juvenile people to be able to come to Wikipedia and show a buddy "Hey if you type this in, Wikipedia takes you to Pittsburg" Legacypac (talk) 01:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Legacypac: I asked you at the first round. Do you think the quote about the Shittsburgh Steelers is RS or not? I am not asking you if you agree with it, I am asking if you think it is an WP:RS. You didn't answer the first time, please can you answer at the second time of asking. Si Trew (talk) 21:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - No not a RS A hyperbole use in an opinion piece by a sports writer is not a reliable source WP:NEWSORG."Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." Legacypac (talk) 22:20, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget (this negates my vote at the last round) to List of nicknames for Pittsburgh, I did not want to add it there at the first round, but that is the obvious place to add it and then redirect this. I have found one RS and many more are there for the taking. In what way are they I should like to ask @Tavix: in what way is it inappropriate? In what way is it unhelpful? Seems helpful if someone types it to get to where it belongs. May be obvious to some, but the "sh" digraph is peculiar to English language and not necessarily known as a derogatory pun to others. Redirects do not have to be neutral; articles must. Si Trew (talk) 21:45, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment BDD I do contest that these names are disparaging. Often they are used by the inhabitants of the areas with a sense of ironic pride. The references from reliable sources that I gave above, for example, show that, and previous arguments about Gunchester and Sadly Broke (Bradley Stoke): "broke" meaning "penniless" and also "broken") tend to indicate these are used by their inhabitants not just disparagingly but ironically and somewhat proudly.I've escaped fromlived in those I mentioned. Si Trew (talk) 21:52, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, but then they're examples of self-deprecating humor. A nickname doesn't have to come from the outside to be disparaging. --BDD (talk) 15:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I must disagree with creating the "list of disparaging names...." How would one do that without RS? Lists don't in practice have to be RS. And the list, while incomplete, is so open to abuse with people putting in non-RS disparaging names for their own back yard that I think that is a bad idea. Put the R for the disparaging name to the article that mentions it. The fact I have RS on don't mention it is simply because I haven't added that section to the article, with RS, pending the outcome of this. Plenty of other geographic articles do mention disparaging names. The Smoke is an R to Smoke (disambiguation) which under Smoke (disambiguation)#Other says "London, aka The Smoke, colloquial name for the city to London". Now that DAB is a bit iffy in that the City of London and London are not the same thing (you can be in the city without being in the City), but leave that alone; it was called that because of it being smoky during the industrial revolution – rather disparagingly – but we don't have it listed as "disparaging term for London". See Clean Air Act 1956. Si Trew (talk) 22:05, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We could enforce a standard that every entry would need a citation. --BDD (talk) 15:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And how could we enforce that? Si Trew (talk) 16:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The same way we enforce any list standard: monitoring, maybe some hidden text to warn users, and protection if necessary. It would be WP:SUSCEPTIBLE to vandalism, sure, but that in and of itself isn't a good reason not to create. --BDD (talk) 18:05, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. List articles are, I presume, articles and so the usual WP:BRD etc can happily apply. I don't want to gaze into a crystal ball, but it just seems so open to people putting in disparaging terms that I am not sure if it would be helpful to attempt to create it. As User:BDD knows, I sometimes have a stab at creating something in draft space which occasionally then gets moved over redirects here, and I hope it's obvious I do so that if someone disagrees they have a peg to hang their hat on. But with this one, I don't want to make a draft since it's so open-ended. I know I'm not making argument very clear, but it just seems it's best not to have the list article, and redirect things to the places. To come clean, I created an R from Suckramento the other day (11 Jan), but took that to CSD this morning (13 Jan) because it was just me being POINTY, and was unfair of me to have created it. Nobody said so but I realised so, and it is quite rightly red again. Si Trew (talk) 21:18, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't see this serving either of the uses for redirects (linking within articles and searching for a term) for any users carrying out a legitimate search or edit. Needlessly offensive without encyclopedic value.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:24, 23 January 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.

NIИ[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) 18:22, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete mojibake. Gorobay (talk) 19:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all. @Gorobay: Have you considered proposing a new speedy deletion criterion for these types of redirects on WT:CSD? Steel1943 (talk) 20:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Kü-K§Wistühüw. This is the spelling used in the Dictionary of Canadian Biography[1] and is therefore a likely search term. Pburka (talk) 15:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I reported the error to them. That said, they use this mojibake once, and for the entire rest of the article, spell his name correctly. I think that nearly everyone will recognize this as a computer error and search for the correctly spelled ones below it. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:27, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Update: They e-mailed me back, thanking me for reporting the error and stated they would fix it. So, even more reason to delete. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pburka, unless it's a display issue on my computer, this has already been corrected. I don't know if that affects your vote. --BDD (talk) 14:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC) Either it's back or, more likely, I just didn't notice it the other day. --BDD (talk) 15:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That dictionary spells it ⟨KĀ-K§WISTÜHÜW⟩, which is a different wrong spelling from the one nominated. Gorobay (talk) 18:07, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as mojibake. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:08, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the accent-stripped forms were created by Eubot (talk · contribs) and are much much worse than mojibake, since they are typos of mojibake, so aren't even real. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 05:26, 16 January 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.

Nightwish's eighth studio album[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. --BDD (talk) 15:07, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion - Non-standard way to search for album (Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#Reasons for deleting #8: Novel or very obscure synonym for an article name) Mburrell (talk) 18:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the numbers are correct, this is neither non-standard or obscure. If fact, it is highly likely that these names were used in discussion by the media before the name of the album was announced. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:34, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per Oiyarbepsy. These should not be used as article titles prior to there being enough information to write an article, but given that articles exist there is no problem with having these are redirects. If they are incorrect they should be retargetted, but there is no reason to delete. Thryduulf (talk) 15:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • excuse me, but I see no comment ioinion or addition here from Oiyarbepsy. Si Trew (talk) 12:30, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Take a look immediately above my comment and you'll see what Oiyarbepsy said (they didn't bold an opinion which is possibly why you've missed it). Thryduulf (talk) 13:00, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, my stupidity. Not sure what to do with it though, if these are their sixth and eighth albums then they're harmless. Patently if the sixth redirected to the ninth, or the eighth to the tenth, that would be simply wrong. But as they are the sixth and eighth from a WP:BAND with WP:RS, I am veering reluctantly towards a keep. Si Trew (talk) 13:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First sentence of Endless says "Endless Forms Most Beautiful is the upcoming eighth album" and therefore is a bit crystal. "Dark Passion Play" says at first sentence "Dark Passion Play is the sixth studio album by Finnish symphonic metal band Nightwish, released on 26 September, 2007 in Finland"
Endless is Crystal, Dark Passion Play isn't (but presumably has sod all to do with a Passion Play). Si Trew (talk) 13:58, 13 January 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.

Category:Sings written by Stefan Johnson[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 procedural close. Since they're not true redirects, category redirects are discussed at WP:CFD. Let me know if you need a hand listing there. --BDD (talk) 18:15, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This category is misspelled. An appropriate category has been created and all entries have been moved accordingly. There is not need for this misspelled category page. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:43, 9 January 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.

Philology of the Soviet Union[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 changed to article. [Non-admin closure.] Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:50, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think this redirect is misleading; I thought it would describe the study of philology in the Soviet Union. A list of philologists in the Soviet Union is a related topic, but it doesn't really address what the search term suggests. --BDD (talk) 14:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I added Linguistics of the Soviet Union to this nomination. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:38, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to article I'd have to do some research first, but the Soviet Union actually applied some communist ideology to its study of linguistics and had some unique ideas that were not seen elsewhere. So an article is definitely justified here. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • But who will make it? If you do, make it a procedural close. If not, it is a pointless thing to say. I'd like an article about Penny Falls, and have researched and phoned and written to various instutions and companies to get their history and patents and so forth, and the British Toy Museum and Bally Manufacturing and whatnot, to no avail: that is why there is a red link. Everyone knows what penny falls are (and if they don't they can type it into Their Favourite Search Engine): no RS for them anywhere. Therefore red. Si Trew (talk) 00:09, 11 January 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.

The Hairy Tree[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) 15:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This was previously a redirect to Girvan, where this particular tree was located. The article used to have a paragraph about it, but that got deleted last October. Dule Tree doesn't mention it either, so there seems no reason to keep this redirect : Noyster (talk), 09:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete D2, misleading if no information at target. Tried to find people called Harry Tree etc. but none seems likely. Si Trew (talk) 14:02, 13 January 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.

N.Y.E. LA[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) 15:05, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect with wiki markup. GZWDer (talk) 08:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to N.Y.E. LA (or similar - the source does not give the event an official title) without leaving the redirect; keep target the same. Ivanvector (talk) 17:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ivanvector:  Done, but with RFD tag moved back to nominated redirect so that this RFD can play itself out. Steel1943 (talk) 17:13, 9 January 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.

The Twilight Zone Tower of Terror[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) 14:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect with wiki markup. GZWDer (talk) 08:47, 9 January 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.

Dreams of Stabbing and/or Being Stabbed[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) 14:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect with wiki markup. GZWDer (talk) 08:46, 9 January 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_January_9&oldid=1142587199"