Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 October 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 20[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 20, 2015.

Jesuo Kristo[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) 13:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not related to Espseranto. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 22:53, 20 October 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.

QB Bills[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. Deryck C. 20:28, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While Jim Kelly is probably the best known Bills quarterback, "QB Bills" seems like an extremely unlikely search term for him, or anything, really. --BDD (talk) 18:17, 20 October 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.

Wave 2[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 Second wave. --BDD (talk) 13:46, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are many titles on Wikipedia that have a "Wave 2" with equal merit to the current subject of the article, including:

Also the page view stats for this page is very poor. Codename Lisa (talk) 18:09, 20 October 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.

Fiftieth State[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. There's genuine disagreement as to the usefulness or ambiguity of these as a group. Any may be discussed individually, though I'd advise any interested editors to proceed only with those terms for which there's demonstrable ambiguity. I don't find the general argument that, say, anything with twelve states could have a "12th state". If such terminology isn't commonly used, that's not really important to us here. --BDD (talk) 13:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fiftieth State (Arbitrary break)[edit]

Delete as vague. The way these redirects are set up now is promoting an American WP:BIAS. The United States isn't the only country to have "states," several other countries have them as well, and there are several ways to rank those states. In addition, a "state" can mean a "sovereign state," and there are ~200 of those, which can be ranked in a myriad of different ways as well. To illustrate my point, I will attempt to make a list of things that could be referred to as "sixth state." Within the United States, it may refer to Massachusetts (sixth state to enter the Union), but (just using the infobox data) it may also refer to Pennsylvania (sixth state in population), Arizona (sixth state in area), Delaware (sixth state in density), etc. Looking at other country's states, we can do the same thing with Mexico, where (using the same order as before), "sixth state" may refer to San Luis Potosí, Chiapas, and Tamaulipas. We can do the same for any other country that uses "states" as its sub-national unit: Australia, Austria, Brazil, Germany, India, Malaysia, Nigeria, Sudan, South Sudan, and Venezuela. In addition, using "state" to mean "sovereign states" (which is the target of List of states), we can do the same exercise on the national level: the "sixth state" would be Pakistan by population and Australia by area, for example. We can rank states using any metric we want, so choosing to do American states by order of statehood is completely arbitrary. And I'm just looking at political definitions of "state." It's confusing for our readers to be forced into an article about an American state when search results would serve them better and it's harmful to promote an WP:AMERICENTRIC worldview when the audience of Wikipedia is WP:GLOBAL. -- Tavix (talk) 01:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. In a US context, these terms are unambiguous; for example, nobody uses "sixth state" to mean Pennsylvania, Arizona, Delaware, or any other state that doesn't have Boston as its capital. Can you present any evidence that "sixth state", or any other number for that matter, is routinely used in English as a reference to any non-US jurisdiction? I can imagine translations of some of these terms being used in other languages, e.g. the Spanish equivalent of "thirty-first state" referring to Baja California Sur and the Portuguese equivalent of "twenty-sixth state" referring to Tocantins, but we'd need strong evidence to conclude that the current targets are not the primary topic for English-language usage in every case. And finally, if you can disprove me on any of these, the solution will be disambiguation, not deletion: the existence of another common meaning for "eighteenth state" wouldn't mean that people were unlikely to use it for Louisiana, for example. Nyttend (talk) 01:36, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I provided links in each of my examples. Each link has a list of U.S. states, RANKED, in a certain order. Look at List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population for example, and in that list, Pennsylvania is listed as the sixth state. When referring to states in this manner, you would just use "Sixth State." Can you imagine how unwieldy of a disambiguation that would be? Search results would be BY FAR the best way to handle this, as you could use "sixth state" to refer to just about anything you want it to refer to. -- Tavix (talk) 01:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You've totally missed the point. Once again, Americans never use these terms unqualified except in the sense that they're used here. Yes, "sixth state in area", "tenth state in density", etc., but this is not Sixth State by area: it's merely Sixth State, a concept that always and unambiguously means Massachusetts when used by Americans. You need to find examples in which "Nth state", by itself, is routinely used in reference to a non-US country or a non-US subnational state. This is no different from the 51st state article and its related disambiguation page, which doesn't list anything except the main article and a couple of pop-culture works entitled "51st state". Expanding the disambiguation page with Angola and Spain because their population and area, respectively, are 51st largest worldwide, would be absolutely ludicrous. Likewise ludicrous is the idea of demanding that this be deleted or disambiguated on the basis of other states being Nth in rankings such as population, area, population density, etc. Nyttend (talk) 01:51, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let's take a look at the lede for the Massachusetts article. There it says it is the "14th most populous" and the "3rd most densely populated" of the 50 States, for example. Right there in the lede, it's using "14th state" and "3rd state." -- Tavix (talk) 01:59, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's using "14th most populous" and "3rd most densely populated". Not even close. Let's look at another type of example. Run a Google search for <idaho "forty-third state"> and you get tons of results referring to Idaho as the Forty-Third State, whether webpages for children or print sources. Rhode Island is the forty-third most populous state, but search for <"rhode island" "forty-third state"> and you get a mix of pages talking about RI's Forty-Third State House of Representatives District, Betty Davis Wallace's services as the forty-third State Regent, and similar false positives; the only results I found that use merely "Forty-third State" are pages like this one, which uses "Forty-third State" to refer to...Idaho. Even Randy in Boise knows that "Forty-Third State" is always Idaho when used by Americans. Nyttend (talk) 02:01, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And yet all of those examples are American WP:BIAS because we aren't looking at other types of states. -- Tavix (talk) 02:14, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as meaningless or confusing to the majority of readers (those outside the US), misleading probably to many who have some other ranking of states in mind, and vague and unlikely to be used within the US. Apart from a few recent/historic ones I cannot imagine these are used or even known by many.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 02:20, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: In which contexts other than the one intended here would the phrase "fourteenth state" with no qualifiers mean something other than Vermont? Michael Hardy (talk) 04:55, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
New Jersey, Oklahoma, Hawaii, Piauí (Brazil) and Ohio. Just some examples from a cursory search. I can find more examples if you'd like. -- Tavix (talk) 05:27, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Singapore, too (and occasionally Brunei when people float the idea of it joining Malaysia). 210.6.254.106 (talk) 06:06, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or disambiguate wP:BIAS these should be deleted because the US isn't the only place with states. If these are kept then they need disambiguation for various states in non-U.S. countries. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:05, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. A disambiguation page would not be helpful due to there still being too much ambiguity in the terms amongst other topics, yet alone the United States in itself. Steel1943 (talk) 14:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all, especially the Hawaii and Alaska ones. Yes, there are other possible uses, but the US states are the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Is anyone going to search for "49th State" and want to get something other than Alaska? It's possible a few individual states aren't clear primary topics, but I think most of them are, and Alaska definitely is. Sideways713 (talk) 14:51, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all as a mass nomination, but I reserve comment for any that may be broken out separately or renominated. Enough of these are very actively used that they're all worth keeping, unless there's some other policy-based reason for deletion, which I can't think of. If there is ambiguity with some of these, then hatnotes or dabs may be appropriate, but at the moment I doubt that any competing usages are worth this treatment. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC) striking due to accidental duplicate !vote Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 17:16, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Claims of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC need to be supported by actual evidence, which is not going to be the same in all cases. For example:
210.6.254.106 (talk) 19:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any common and sensible way to order them? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly. If we want to continue the theme that "xth state" refers to an admission order, Member states of the United Nations can be sorted by date of admission. For example, South Sudan would naturally be the "193rd state" (source). -- Tavix (talk) 19:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure we could, but it's extremely unusual for UN member states to be referred to by an ordinal. There's also the issue of succession - South Sudan is the 193rd current member state, but does that mean they are the 193rd state to have been admitted, or the 193rd out of states that are currently members, and how many of the 193 are represented by Czechoslovakian and Yugoslavian successor states? The prominence of order of admission seems to be a uniquely American thing, and that seems to be the only thing that an ordinal without a qualifier commonly refers to. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:16, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all, alternatively keep all with liberty to renominate (from a UK editor, in case anyone's interested about a US bias) The suggestion that "sixth state" might be a plausible description of Pennsylvania or Delaware because they are the sixth states by population or density is utterly tenuous - if people want to look for the states of the USA in order of density, they won't be looking for "sixth state". I have no real difficulty in saying the same about the possibility of confusing these with sovereign states or members of the UN, ranked by whatever metric one chooses, because that's not what people are likely to be looking for when searching simply for "sixth state" or "46th state" or whatever. But, if there is actual evidence that some "xth state" redirects to US states might be inappropriate because the same phrase is actually (not just hypothetically) used to refer to something else, be it a part of another country or whatever, then by all means relist that and discuss it on its merits. Having said that, it might simply be better to keep all for consistency and hatnote any genuinely confusing targets along the lines of xth state redirects here. For other uses, see X. A 50-state nomination could end up as a train wreck, so individual nominations would allow for more focused discussion. BencherliteTalk 22:44, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per Nyttend and Bencherlite. —⁠烏⁠Γ (kaw), 22:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if kept, the numeric ones should probably be tagged as {{R avoided double redirect}} to the spelled-out ones, or vice versa, for future tracking in case any of them get turned into dab pages. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 04:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NPOV. This is clear American bias. Strong evidence is needed to demonstrate for example, 5th state is used only for the American state. States can be nation states in an order. There can be infinite ordering of states in their other, unbiased, context (such as a sovereign state in some order - and this has more than enough routine coverage). Creation of these redirects will ruin search results for genuine uses in such cases and promote American states which is not an acceptable use of wikipedia. If a single specific state is a primary topic, that can be recreated but this should not be the other way round. --202.165.249.36 (talk) 05:44, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as overly US-centric. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with no prejudice against individual ordinals being renominated, more or less per Bencherlite. Overall, it is very predominant in American usage for a phrase such as "XXX is the Nth state", where there is no ordinal qualifier (e.g. "Nth in size"), to refer unambiguously to that state's order of admission to the union. This even holds true for potential states which are not currently admitted: various things get referred to as the "51st state" (notably Canada, Puerto Rico, and the moon) suggesting that they will become part of the United States some time in the future. While there may be reasons to question or disambiguate some of these redirects, those should be evaluated on an ordinal-by-ordinal basis; there does not appear to be a general competing usage in any other context which holds for any broad range of unqualified ordinals. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
— Duplicate vote: Ivanvector (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above. -- Tavix (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I thought I hadn't actually !voted yet. Fixed. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I figured as much. I probably should have just messaged you... -- Tavix (talk) 20:25, 23 October 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_October_20&oldid=1038440041"