Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 March 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 16

[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 16, 2015.

North Oshawa

[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 retargeted to Oshawa by Some Gadget Geek. --BDD (talk) 14:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

North Oshawa is not a real place, not defined or recognized by any municipal, provincial or federal entity. Mrfrobinson (talk) 22:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It appears on Bing Maps and Bing Weather and has a number of incoming links. Furthermore, it is officially the name of one of the campuses of UOIT, hence the redirect to the history page there. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 23:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So? People genuinely have been misdirected about 900 miles because of bad maps, including, I think oe reported occasion, people managing to get to spain and back from Humberside with some bad directions....[citation needed] you think they would have spotted it.... I remember good old Autoroute (now apparently Microsoft Autoroute)).... and I keep paper maps in the car and look out if I see a subtle object like an ocean, but apparently others don't. We are adding to their confusion, I think. Si Trew (talk) 03:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But North Oshawa is
Not to be confused with Downtown Oshawa, where UOIT has another campus.
. Either keep the dab or redirect the page to Oshawa. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 18:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The fact is you want to keep this because UOIT says they have a north and a downtown campus. UOIT North Oshawa campus may exist (and does) however North Oshawa is not an official geographical designation. Mrfrobinson (talk) 20:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No that is your "fact". It was John Maynard Keynes, wasn't it, who said "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?" Si Trew (talk) 10:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? Mrfrobinson (talk) 12:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you say something is a "fact" then tell us the fact... I didn't realise that was hard to understand. Actually what you are saying by "the fact is..." is "my opinion is..." I do not want to turn into Gradgrind here, but there is a difference. Si Trew (talk) 13:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All of its "incoming links" were added by you at the same time as you created the redirect, to articles where the link wasn't actually useful or desirable at all — they were all already linking to University of Ontario Institute of Technology in the same sentence or paragraph anyway, and thus didn't need to double-link it via a redirect alongside the direct link. Bearcat (talk) 17:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is why I am suggesting that if we don't keep the redirect as is, we change the target to Oshawa as is the case with Downtown Oshawa. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 16:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The redirect for Downtown Oshawa is stronger since one would expect a city to have a "downtown" area. My concern is if we keep a redirect for north oshawa why not east, west and south oshawa? Mrfrobinson (talk) 19:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, one new issue that came to my attention after I posted my comments below is that we do have a longstanding redirect to the city's article from the redundantly overdisambiguated North Oshawa (Oshawa). (As opposed to what other North Oshawa, exactly?) The difference is that that title was originally created as a standalone article before being converted into a redirect for the same reasons that pertain to this discussion — but because some content from that was merged into the target article, WP:GFDL requires us to keep it in place as a redirect for writer attribution purposes even though it's technically even more unnecessary than this one would be. I'm still hard pressed to come up with any substantive reason why either form is warranted — but I'm equally hard pressed to come up with a good reason why we should keep the overdisambiguated form but not the more logical one. Bearcat (talk) 19:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Oshawa. Shouldn't redirect to an institution that happens to be located there. As a redirect to the city it's kind of pointless, but harmless. Ivanvector (talk) 16:26, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's pretty pointless but harmless as a redirect to the city — as I pointed out Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board#North Oshawa?, while the term does have some small amount of utility as a general geographic marker (in the same way that every city has "north", "south", "east" and "west" parts), it's not the proper name of any specific part of the city, and thus not a thing that will ever actually warrant its own standalone article. But it's definitely, unequivocally wrong as a redirect to UOIT, which is just one thing out of many in the north end of Oshawa — if any redirect of this type to UOIT were warranted at all, the title of that redirect would be "North Oshawa Campus", not "North Oshawa". {For the record, I don't see how that's warranted either — no Wikipedia user in their right mind would actually expect either of UOIT's individual campuses to have their own standalone articles separately from the main one on the institution as a whole, so it would serve no real purpose standing alone as a directly searchable or linkable term in its own right. The only place in all of Wikipedia where that could ever actually be linked as a standalone term that didn't coexist right next to a link to UOIT's main article is in UOIT's main article, where it would have to be delinked as a recursive redirect anyway.) But that's a separate question from this — getting back to the redirect that's actually at hand, while my initial preference would have been to delete it, the existence and WP:GFDL-mandated retention of the overdisambiguated North Oshawa (Oshawa) redirect leads me to conclude that the more appropriate solution is to repoint it to Oshawa instead. I don't see that as valuable, but it doesn't cause much harm — and as long as we're keeping a patently ridiculous alternate version of the very same thing, I can't actually justify arguing to delete this outright as much as I might want to. But as currently constituted, it's just plain wrong since the title covers a lot more than just UOIT's campus — so it has to be either retargeted or deleted, and can't just stay in place as a redirect to UOIT. Bearcat (talk) 16:49, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree. Make the page redirect to Oshawa as per Ivanvector. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 18:44, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The retarget is complete. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 23:38, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Can anyone make a new section in Oshawa#North Oshawa that describes it as a fast-growing area of the city and mention the presence of the college and university? 192.197.54.51 (talk) 13:03, 23 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.

University of Blacksburg

[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. Redirects are solely search terms and ascribe no value to the term (WP:RNEUTRAL}. That this term has been used in external sources (however inaccurately) means that someone may search on it and it is right that we take them to the intended article that serves to explain the correct naming of this institution. This is neither recently created nor harmful (WP:RHARMFUL}. Just Chilling (talk) 03:31, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Absurd redirect, nobody anywhere calls it this. It's not a useful search term. The only potential use of this redirect is to amuse people on UVA message boards. B (talk) 21:21, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as creator, and strongly denounce the implication that I am a UVA sympathizer. Believe it or not, I saw this in a scientific citation. After confirming the the person referred to was at Virginia Tech, I created the redirect. Virginia Tech is the only university of Blacksburg. --BDD (talk) 21:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it's the same source, but here's an example of the usage in the wild, and at a .edu address. Here's another in a scientific journal. These suggest this is a plausible, if not outright likely, error for those who aren't native English speakers. --BDD (talk) 21:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it is neither plausible nor likely. It's obviously unintentional, not what someone thinks the school is actually called ... "thesis presented to University of Blacksburg, Virginia, in partial fulfillment". I'm sure whoever wrote this started out with "University of Virginia in Blacksburg, Virginia", then realized that they were mistaken, but forgot to look up the correct name for the school. If they had really meant to call it the "University of Blacksburg", they would have said "presented to the University of Blacksburg in Blacksburg, Virginia ... ." Do we have University of South Bend, University of Charlottesville, University of State College, etc? No - all of these would be absurd, even if somewhere at some point someone accidentally used one of them. This is an absurdly implausible redirect. --B (talk) 00:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:OSE. Besides, if I saw any of those names in citations, I'd make them too. I've demonstrated that "University of Blacksburg" exists as an error in serious publications. It's likely to confuse people. We could turn our nose up at them, or we could help them. One of those approaches is within the spirit of Wikipedia. --BDD (talk) 13:19, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Part of the problem here is the "-burg" ending. Even the 1911ish US Board on Geographical Names (which couldn't quite decide what to call itself over the years) cut most of the "boroughs" and "burghs" off, but left a few here and there, in a kinda botched fashion. (Bill Bryson says so I think in one of his books). So we have the added bonus of deciding whether it should be "borough" or "burgh" for something that is neither, in the first place. Si Trew (talk) 02:41, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Umm ... what? The town in which Virginia Tech is located is named Blacksburg, Virginia. The etymology of "burg" or "burgh" has nothing to do with the question of whether it makes sense for "University of Blacksburg" to be a redirect to Virginia Tech. --B (talk) 03:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per B's evidence this is actually used in the wild so it is clearly a plausible search term and the target is correct and unambiguous - which is what matters at RfD. It can be tagged as {{R from incorrect name}} if desired. Thryduulf (talk) 11:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's absurd - it isn't actually used in the wild. One person, on the entire planet, forgot to look up what the school was called and so he left it as "University of Blacksburg, Virginia". It is blatantly obvious that Blacksburg, Virginia is the location of the university and he is just referring to the school as "University of". --B (talk) 13:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've already shown two such cases. You'll see more at "university of blacksburg" -wikipedia, though that also includes benign constructions like "Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, of Blacksburg". --BDD (talk) 13:19, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Taking out your "benign constructions", there are 28.[1]. WP:R#DELETE lists two relevant reasons for deleting the redirect: #3 if the redirect is offensive or abusive (the head of the VT Foundation says "if we become the University of Blacksburg, we're dead in the water", which certainly sounds like he doesn't approve of it) and #8 if the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym. --B (talk) 16:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty clear from that quote that Smoot is saying Tech needs to not confine itself to Blacksburg in terms of influence. It's a stretch to say that it means "University of Blacksburg" is offensive, far greater a stretch to suggest that it's inherently offensive, rather than a mistake. DELETE #3 is more about attacks; even if this were unquestionably a disparaging name, WP:RNEUTRAL still applies. --BDD (talk) 16:45, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's obviously inherently offensive. There is a prejudice that a college or university named after a city has less stature than one named after the state. See [2], for instance, as an example of an article that discusses the prestige of a school's name. Referring to Tech as the "University of Blacksburg" is about marginalizing it by putting it on par with a lower tier school like Norfolk State University. For instance, if I didn't like UVA, I might refer to them derisively as Charlottesville State University. (Obviously, there are counterexamples - Miami University and Wake Forest University are both named after localities, but are academically prestigious.) --B (talk) 16:56, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Famous prestigious American higher education institutions named for localities include Oberlin College, Boston University, Bryn Mawr College, Princeton University, and I'm sure many others. That said, I favor deleting this redirect as I believe almost nobody would ever search for it. It is an incorrect term and I would hate to have any Wikipedia article take disadvantage of this screwy link. Which raises the question: Is there a way a redirect can be labeled as deprecated, please don't wikilink? —Anomalocaris (talk) 17:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sort of. It's already tagged with {{R from incorrect name}}, which marks it as unprintworthy and has the instruction "Pages that use this link should be updated to link directly to the target without the use of a piped link that hides the correct details." --BDD (talk) 17:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Just because of that someone says, presumably from the word "black" and I guess alluding to that "blacksburg" is a town full of black people, how is it inherently offensive? We have an article for Negro and Black people and whatnot, that is not inherently offensive. He was probably right, unfortunately, but we have an article for nigger as well. WP:NOTCENSORED. Si Trew (talk) 06:16, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The town was named after someone with the surname Black. I don't think there's a racial aspect to the name, nor to this incorrect name for Virginia Tech. --BDD (talk) 13:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. There is no racial aspect whatsoever to the name. The reason it is offensive is because it marginalizes the school's prestige, not because the town happens to be named after Samuel Black and his family. The original Black family house was actually still exists (although it was moved a few years ago to make room for a shopping center [3]). Blacksburg's neighboring town is Christiansburg and, despite what initial conceptions I would bet a lot of people have when they go there, the towns were named after Mr. Black and Mr. Christian - they have nothing whatsoever to do with race or religion. --B (talk) 23:10, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't saying that there was. What I am saying is, are people typing for "blacksburg" expecting to find a university or a city full of darkies? I don't know... and thanks for telling me it was named after someone whose surname was Black, that was a nmew one on me. It's true that the etymology etc shouldn't affect current use, but I can't help thinking this is somehow the wrong place.... 07:12, 19 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonTrew (talk • contribs)
I'm at a loss for words. None of this has anything to do with the redirect in question. --B (talk) 15:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It does have something to do with it. Probably people will use it as a racist term to mean "a poor university full of black people". Sometimes we have to be a bit clairvoyant here, what are people likely to search for? I don't know. Si Trew (talk) 08:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Simon, I'm not sure what you're trying to get at, but this seems quite a tangent. There has been no suggestion whatsoever of racism. older ≠ wiser 17:37, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clear evidence that people do make this mistake. The possible use as an insult appears to be mostly imaginary. As BDD say, we can either ignore such mistakes or we can help such users find the correct article. I'd prefer to help the ignorant. older ≠ wiser 17:37, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I could see it being said so in a kinda Daily Show, satirical sense. I am not saying it is right but that it is possible. We have Bonglaland listed for example... Si Trew (talk) 21:44, 20 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.

Module talk:RfD

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 April 2#Module talk:RfD

Babij

[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 Converted to dab page. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 16:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A Google search for "Babij" has about 320,000 results; Iwan Babij is only the 4th result; there are many others; no reason to prefer Iwan Babij over all others. —Anomalocaris (talk) 17:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which Wikipedia's rule prescribes to delete redirects relying on Google search results? Кадош (talk) 19:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And which RfD "rule" are you quoting to delete or keep it? Fancy Cyrillic name, I see. But do your homework first. Si Trew (talk) 20:21, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm. Oleksandr Babiy is the only person I see with an article. Am I missing others? Still, those two would be enough to justify a disambiguation page. To add to the confusion, Бабий is apparently both a Ukrainian and a Russian name. Babi Yar is Бабий Яр in Russian, but that would be a partial title match, so perhaps we should disregard it. - Eureka Lott 00:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Buble, for example? Si Trew (talk) 02:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well the IJ formation is very common in Dutch orthography and would just mean Baby (R to Infant). How many do you want? We are not a translation dictionary, WP:NOTDIC Si Trew (talk) 02:48, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well just close the bloody RfD then. If you're going to change it under someones feet then what the bloody point is for anyone to look at it? Bloody travelator, this one is. Si Trew (talk) 02:59, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looking nice, @EurekaLott:. Need to bung in some more into that one, but I'll go with that one, and {{R to DAB}}. Si Trew (talk) 08:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I added a couple more, hope you don't mind, not names but orthography. IJ (digraph) I think particularly needs bringing out for an English-speaking audience. 08:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonTrew (talk • contribs)
This is ok with me too. --BDD (talk) 14:44, 23 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.

Colorados

[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 Colorado (disambiguation) as {{R from plural}} (non-admin closure) Si Trew (talk) 06:29, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, because I don't believe anyone would enter Colorados when looking for Colorados Party (Uruguay) and because someone would be more likely looking for a different Colorados, such as Rancho Colorados or Colorados, Nicaragua or Colorados Archipelago —Anomalocaris (talk) 17:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Colorados is a nickname of the party and this fact is shown in the article. I suppose that Anomalocaris harasses me: first he reverted my edit in article Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, then he started offering to delete redirects that I had made. Кадош (talk) 19:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As the most ever unimaginitive name for a US state, I could see Colorado being a mistype )or Colorado's. For an English speaking audience, I would have thought that closer than places in South America. I do appreciate that there are other ways to say it in other languages, but this is English Wikipedia. Si Trew (talk) 20:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I support that Retarget. Si Trew (talk) 08:43, 17 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.

AirAsia Aerhad

[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. --BDD (talk) 14:43, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible typo. - TheChampionMan1234 22:04, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is a misspelling of AirAsia Berhad, an either alternate or former name of the target's subject. Steel1943 (talk) 22:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's definitely a typo, and an implausible one at that (a and b aren't close on a keyboard). I did a Google Search for "AirAsia Aerhad -Wikipedia" and got a total of 9 results. Even then, all but one of the results were either wiki mirrors or unintelligible. The only mention of "AirAsia Aerhad" I can find is in this blog. Noting the sheer implausibleness of this redirect, I can't see how this is helping anyone. Because of this, delete it. Tavix |  Talk  00:00, 10 March 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) 16:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I mean "Airhead" in the sense of an oxygen theif, wasn't it Orwell who said of Chamberlain he wasn't a prime minister, he was simply a Hole in the air. Si Trew (talk) 16:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear, apparently Airhead, a dab, does not mean that. Common in my slang, to have you know not much grey matter between the two ears. We do have Airheads, but I think that is different meaning... Si Trew (talk) 16:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Airhead (disambiguation) links to Airhead (slang) with the description "a common derogatory term for a foolish person" (the only meaning I was aware of before now), but Airhead (slang) is just a soft redirect to Wiktionary. I don't think the soft redirect should be deleted, as that's a useful search term in this own right but should we link to Wiktionary direct from the dab page entry? Alternatively, do we have a list of these sorts of slang terms anywhere to point it at? Thryduulf (talk) 04:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say it's particularly derogatory, more self-deprecation, but (I am sorry I am Cockney) the British call themselves fools themselves all the time and other people don't, that would be an insult. It looks really odd when you call yourself a Hungarian: hulye angol ("Stupid Englishman" in Hungary, wearing a T shirt saying so, but it would not at all look odd in England to do so, it would just make someone smile. (We still actually don't have Self-deprecating humour as an {{R from other spelling}} for Self-deprecating humor, which we discussed here some months ago, but no point creating it for the purpose, that would be rather WP:POINTY, I think). Si Trew (talk) 08:50, 17 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.

Asus Transformer

[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 Restore article per WP:BRD. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 17:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Undo - the list of devices that it was before is more appropriate and convenient for readers looking for what they want; don't take everything for granted. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 14:29, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Will look at this but best to leave the bot tidy up the double R first, or it is more confusing. But I am with Ivanvector in principle. Si Trew (talk) 16:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. They all now go to the (extremely boring) article. Si Trew (talk) 08:56, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Restore. The article is not boring. In fact, it is confusable with the other models, which is what the original page intended to distinguish exactly. 192.197.54.51 (talk) 15:26, 24 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.

Darren Jaundrill

[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) 14:31, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This was originally redirect to England and Wales police and crime commissioner elections, 2012 and then it was changed to redirect to Bristol Channel#Swimming Records. Neither article now mentions Darren Jaundrill as the claim at Bristol Channel has now been removed as unverifiable. I do not see any valid target for this redirect. -- GB fan 12:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just gave you a WP:RS mentioning it. What more do you want? Si Trew (talk) 08:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is not much point saying "Someone should fix the article". WP:JUSTDOIT. WP:BOLD. Just do it, then. Si Trew (talk) 09:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would just do it my self if I felt the information belongs, but I do not see enough in reliable sources to show the information is true. -- GB fan 23:35, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I see what you mean. We have this from the Birmingham Mail which presumably is reliable, but it does seem a bit kinda self promoting even so. And by "fastest man to swim it" what does that mean? I mean, presumably it means to swim it in the quickest time, but it could just about mean doing it before anyone else does -- that's Headline language for you, I suppose. (My favourite is from the Wolverhampton Echo that had "Woman, 74, Dies". You could just have that permanently set up in type). Si Trew (talk) 13:49, 23 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.

Local knowledge

[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. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 17:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:RFD#D2 confusing. I really don't think these two terms are the same. For example, London cabbies' The Knowledge is local knowledge, but traditional knowledge means more knowing about one's culture etc; the first is specifically is geographical the other cultural/historical. Si Trew (talk) 08:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • weak keep local knowledge of the local environment (plants, animals, how to live in the wild) is usually traditional knowledge of the environment; at any rate, the target article uses "local knowledge" as a synonym -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's one of the alternative names used in the lede. The word "local" is used in that article 19 times. I'd probably take your arguments to that talk page before coming here to delete the redirect. Tavix |  Talk  07:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since you said you'd take them there, then, take them there. I will follow you there. Si Trew (talk) 08:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:Traditional knowledge. If you don't think the two terms are the same, discuss it there. I say this because "local knowledge" is littered throughout that article, and it would be pointless deleting the redirect before the term is cleared out from the article. It's a "cart before the horse" argument. Tavix |  Talk  09:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, I do actually know how to put a cart before a horse, or one afterwards. I have actually put a horse in front of a cart, and one afterwards, with its straps and its leather and its blinders. They are a common sight round here, and I help strap them up. I do not need to be patronised by you. That may not have meant to be, but was, extremely patronising. I would say actually insulting. Before you throw custard at people, make sure there's none on your own face. Si Trew (talk) 13:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonTrew: The point I am trying to make is that there isn't a point in deleting "local knowledge" when it is used several times in the article as a synonym for "traditional knowledge." The use of RfD is to discuss redirects, and all I'm saying is that "local knowledge" as a redirect should be kept because it is used in that article as a synonym. I'm not disagreeing with you on whether or not local knowledge and traditional knowledge are synonyms (because they don't seem like synonyms to me). This jut isn't the right forum to discuss that, the talk page is. If consensus is made that local knowledge and traditional knowledge aren't synonyms, then it might be best to create a new article on the subject of "local knowledge" instead of taking it for deletion (which is just a suggestion because I'm no expert). I'm not trying to be offensive, patronizing, or insulting at all and I sincerely apologize if you took my comments that way. The "cart before the horse" phrase just meant that this is the wrong order for going about this matter. First, "local knowledge" should be deleted from the article, then it would make sense deleting this redirect. It wouldn't make sense doing it the other way around, because you would have a time when "local knowledge" is used several times in the article without the redirect guiding people to a target that uses the phrase. Tavix |  Talk  15:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

>>I can't hear you. You insulted me and as a gentleman should apologise politely. Until then I can't hear you. It takes a big man to say sorry. Si Trew (talk) 19:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In case you didn't read my above comment, I bolded the apology for you. I'd recommend you read if you haven't already. Tavix |  Talk  22:10, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And I sincerely accept, and I should apologise to you, probably, for over-reacting. Things can sound harsher here than they would in real life. Thanks. Si Trew (talk) 07:05, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The term "local knowledge" seems to be a synonym of "traditional knowledge". See "There are other terms, such as traditional knowledge or indigenous knowledge, which are closely related, partly overlapping, or even synonymous with local knowledge." [4] (first hit Google returns for "local knowledge"). --Edcolins (talk) 18:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Is it not in Clive James for Pudding the Carp before The d'oevure hors? Si Trew (talk) 20:28, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • It does appear that this is used synonymously with traditional knowledge, though the first thing that came to mind for me was local history. Worth a hatnote, perhaps? I can sympathize with Si Trew here in that to the common person on the street, "local knowledge" means just that, literally. But that doesn't really seem like a concept we would ever be able to address encyclopedically. I don't know. I suppose someone could write a book on it. --BDD (talk) 21:11, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, whoever said about deleting it? I didn't.

We don't even have Horse and cart, but we do have Orson Wells. Si Trew (talk) 21:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nor did I. --BDD (talk) 15:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ach, we do have Horse and cart. But I don't think we have Horse and Cart. Maybe we should fix that one while we're about it. Si Trew (talk) 09:03, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm that just redirects to cart.... Turn again... Si Trew (talk) 09:04, 19 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.

Lohengrin (opera)

[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 revert the original move, restoring the article name back to Lohengrin (opera).(non-admin closure) Prhartcom (talk) 05:32, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Moved from Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation § Proposed redirecting "Lohengrin (opera)" to "Lohengrin (Wagner)"

It has been proposed that "Lohengrin (opera)" should redirect to "Lohengrin (Wagner)". The alternative is to redirect it to "Lohengrin (disambiguation)".

While most have heard of the famous classic opera Lohengrin (Wagner), there exists another opera called Lohengrin that is not well-known: Lohengrin (Sciarrino). It is safe to assume by all concerned that most who consult or edit Wikipedia, when encountering or creating a link to "Lohengrin (opera)", will at first believe the link will take them to the well-known favourite written in 1850 by the great German composer Richard Wagner thinking it to be the only Lohengrin opera, although of course those who are searching for the little-known short contemporary piece written in 1982 by Salvatore Sciarrino need to be accommodated also. Because it is generally believed to be more helpful to the vast majority of readers and editors, this proposal is being put forward. But please consider that the alternative to this proposal would be to follow the guidelines at Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Incomplete disambiguation, which state that a link to "Lohengrin (opera)", an incomplete disambiguation, should instead take the reader to Lohengrin (disambiguation), where the reader can choose which Lohengrin they want. Those who support this proposal believe that the middle step is unhelpful and will cause an unnecessary burden for most people looking for the major work, and that the few looking for the minor work will still be able to find it. Those who oppose this proposal believe that popularity is irrelevant, that the guidelines must be respected and should not be willfully ignored, regardless of any additional effort this causes. Ideally, the outcome of this discussion would either clarify or amend Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Incomplete disambiguation so other similar disagreements will be better-informed by established consensus in the future. Note that, if necessary, a Wikipedia:Hatnote can be placed at the top of both Lohengrin opera articles directing to the other article. Please reply with your Support or your Oppose and hopefully we will see a consensus! Thank-you. (Listed on RFD at this time.) Steel1943 (talk) 01:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC) Prhartcom (talk) 20:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. It may be against guidelines but takes readers (and editors) without a detour where they expect to arrive. Note that until recently the article name was Lohengrin (opera). - I don't know if the guideline could be improved for such cases where one of the choices on a disambiguation is The choice in most cases, comparable to a primary topic. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:51, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - It is for these very cases that the "Incomplete disambiguation" guideline exists. If it were always the case that there was no difference in prominence between the relevant subjects, then the need to redirect the incompletely disambiguated title to the disambiguation page would be too obvious to have a guideline about. Not following this guideline creates the necessity of adding a particularly problematic hatnote to the "primary" article. By stating in a hatnote that an incompletely disambiguated title redirects to a particular article, we are encouraging editors to invent/guess disambiguators when typing things into the search bar, which is not a practice we should be promoting; if casual readers were regularly in the practice of doing this (which they currently are not), then we would have to create many more redirects to anticipate potential disambiguated search strings, in the same way that we currently create redirects from synonyms and misspellings to anticipate search strings. Furthermore, we are inconveniencing almost no one by redirecting Lohengrin (opera) to the disambiguation page. Doing so effectively takes this title out of the picture for nearly all readers; it no longer appears in the search box drop-down menu when people type "Lohengrin" into the search bar, and Lohengrin (Wagner) is presented as the first option in that drop-down menu. The only people it might minorly inconvenience are people looking for the Wagner article who outrun the drop-down menu and incorrectly guess the disambiguator as "opera", an action which seems to me to be an unlikely or at least very uncommon one. The "Incomplete disambiguation" guideline is a good one and there is no reason to deviate from it in this case. Neelix (talk) 00:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
An alternative solution that might satisfy parties on either side of this issue is to simply delete the redirect. I see no reason to keep it. Neelix (talk) 01:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then where would those who type "Lohengrin (opera)" end up? Rlendog (talk) 01:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At the search page. 08:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - The Wagner opera is not only the primary topic for Lohengrin opera, it is far and away the most prominent Lohengrin opera. Any reader who types "Lohengrin (opera)" is almost certainly looking for the Wagner opera, and should get there directly. The few looking for the other opera, if indeed any of those typing Lohengrin (opera) are looking for that one, can get there via the hatnote in exactly the number of steps they would need to via the disambiguation page anyway. If the incomplete disambiguation guidelines causes a case like this to be directed to a dab page, then it is not a good guideline and WP:LEAST would be a better principle to follow. Rlendog (talk) 01:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support but add a hatnote to Lohengrin (Sciarrino) just in case. --Lenticel (talk) 01:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Lenticel. If this conflicts with an incomplete disambiguation guideline (and I'm not aware that it does) then it will be far from the only redirect that does. {{R from incomplete disambiguation}} exists for when there is no primary topic for the search term used - compare with Visions (album) for example. Thryduulf (talk) 03:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Let the search engine do it. In my view, someone typing the exact term knows a but too much about how we disambiguate things randomly to be typing it in, that is, I am saying it's kinda local knowledge. For anyone else, it's just WP:RFD#D2 confusing. (and why is it two opera anyway, surely it is one opus?) Neelix's reasoning is sound, but the conclusion is wrong: if you can't find it from a search, let the search engine do it. How quick do you want it to be? Si Trew (talk) 08:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Off topic. We don't have Trade knowledge or Trade Knowledge but we do have Trade Knowledge Network and – rather a stretch – Traditional Knowledge. That's a bit WP:SURPRISEing isn't it? Si Trew (talk) 08:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is exactly the search term that someone familiar with Wikipedia's naming schemes (i.e. anyone who has read a few articles with disambiguated titles) will use if they know (or suspect) that "Lohengrin" alone is ambiguous but don't know that there are multiple operas by this name (e.g. me). It was used 450 times last month, and that will include some who bookmarked it before the Wagner opera was moved from this title last year. Deleting this is the worst of all worlds as it doesn't help those looking for any topic - as discussed here many times, depending how they arrive they may get search results (that may or may not contain the page they are looking for), a search engine error, an invitation to start a page, or an edit box in which to start the page. Thryduulf (talk) 10:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete is not a possibility for an article name that has existed for almost 10 years. Rather make it the article name again, with a hat note, as described below. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. By far the primary meaning of Lohengrin (opera) is Wagner's Lohengrin. It is a disservice to editors and especially readers to be sent to a disambiguation page when 99.999% of the time their target is the opera by Wagner. The only other Lohengrin opera is an extremely obscure work by Sciarrino which can be taken care of with a hatnote. This is not a case of "local knowledge". Observe the Google search results for Lohengrin opera. All of them refer to Wagner's Lohengrin, page after page. Ditto Google Books. In my print edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica Micropædia, there are two entries for "Lohengrin". The first is the German knight. The second is Wagner's opera. There is no third. If there were several equally known operas named Lohengrin then directing WP's Lohengrin (opera) to the DAB page would make sense. When there is only one other with that name and it is virtually unknown, it doesn't make sense and frankly, makes WP look silly. The parenthetical, an artifact of WP disambiguation practice which print encyclopedias don't use or need, doesn't mean that primary meaning must be disregarded in all cases. Note the very top of the Wikipedia:Disambiguation page:
It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions.
That page is a guideline, not the Ten Commandments or even the Five Pillars. This is a case where common sense should be used to make an exception. Si Trew, I'm not sure what you mean by "why is it two opera anyway, surely it is one opus?". They are two completely separate and different works by two different composers and two different librettists from two different eras and not remotely related apart from the fact that the obscure one is very loosely based on one part of the plot of the famous one. Voceditenore (talk) 11:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Smerus, Lohengrin (opera) has been the title of the article on Wagner's Lohengrin since 2005 when an article on the German knight was created at Lohengrin and the opera was moved to Lohengrin (opera) [5]. Fast forward 9 years to October 2014 when Neelix moved it to Lohengrin (Wagner) and the following day changed "Lohengrin (opera)" to a redirect to Lohengrin (disambiguation) [6]. The original proposal here is to reverse that and to at least make it redirect to Lohengrin (Wagner). Michael is supporting that and further suggesting that in fact it be restored as the actual title of the article on Wagner's Lohengrin, not a redirect. Voceditenore (talk) 16:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tks VdT, in that case I support the proposal, and would further support Michael's proposed move, if it obtains traction. --Smerus (talk) 16:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add some grit, then, to give it some traction. Support. As long as I never have to listen to it... Si Trew (talk) 20:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed but it is a bit of a curate's egg... good in parts... Si Trew (talk) 21:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Further proposal for Lohengrin
[edit]

As the proposal appears to have been decided and consensus reached that "Lohengrin (opera)" should redirect to "Lohengrin (Wagner)" and not to "Lohengrin (disambiguation)", several above have proposed that this action should go further: That "Lohengrin (Wagner)" should be moved back to its original name "Lohengrin (opera)", as there may have been little or no consensus for this recent move. "Lohengrin (Wagner)" would become the redirect to Wagner's "Lohengrin (opera)" article. "Lohengrin (Sciarrino)" would stay as it is. Hatnotes would be placed in both "Lohengrin (opera)" and "Lohengrin (Sciarrino)" referring to the other. Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Incomplete disambiguation may need to be amended to discuss situations when there is such certainty of the meaning of an incomplete disambiguation. Please reply below if you support this new idea. If you oppose this new idea, that means you believe the "Lohengrin (Wagner)" article should keep that name and "Lohengrin (opera)" should redirect to it, as proposed above before this new idea began to emerge in the above discussion. (And you may certainly continue the original Lohengrin discussion above. A smile is certainly deserved for Simon above who is happy to help as long as he "never has to listen to it." :-) Requesting discussion from involved editors Gerda Arendt, Neelix, Rlendog, Lenticel, Thryduulf, Voceditenore, Si Trew, Michael Bednarek, Smerus, Siuenti, and of course any others. Again, please reply with your Support or your Oppose and hopefully we will see a consensus! Thank-you. Prhartcom (talk) 15:18, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, however can you please clarify your comment? No one is suggesting altering the guidelines for Wikipedia:Disambiguation; we simply need to resolve the Lohengrin redirect as stated above. If the Lohengrin redirect clarification discussion is in the wrong place then absolutely, feel free move it to the right place. Prhartcom (talk) 15:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I should be the one apologizing; I misunderstood your suggestion above. Feel free to ignore my comment. Neelix (talk) 16:11, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonTrew: Are you thinking of Karl or Groucho? In fact Rossini said it best - 'Wagner a de beaux moments, mais de mauvais quarts d'heure.'--Smerus (talk) 18:00, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's a nice way of putting it too. Si Trew (talk) 13:40, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is already back to Lohengrin (opera), - I fixed the navbox, - major cleanup needed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:03, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is; technical move request fulfilled. I applied hatnotes per discussion above, restored disambiguation page. All is good. Prhartcom (talk) 01:34, 23 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_March_16&oldid=1251605477"