Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 October 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 4

[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 4, 2015.

Warining light

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 16:43, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Just Chilling I consider a WP:SNOW: WP:CSD#G6 solely due to being too old for WP:CSD#R3. Widefox; talk 20:29, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: It's an unlikely misspelling. B137 (talk) 20:36, 4 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.

Genocide in Syria

[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, default to keep. The main arguments here are: we should delete because "genocide" is not neutral and not used in the article; but we should keep because some sources use "genocide" and it leads readers to the information they're looking for. Deryck C. 00:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite sure if this redirect is appropriate, especially since the article doesn't refer to this conflict as a "genocide". Therefore, it should be deleted per WP:RNEUTRAL. -- Tavix (talk) 04:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - a non-neutral but perfectly valid search term for what's going on in Syria right now. This sort of POV redirect is appropriate and helps readers find the information they're looking for. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:36, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Which ethnic group(s) is genocide being committed against, though? By whom? Has genocide never before been committed in Syria? Smells weaselly to me. --BDD (talk) 15:08, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with Ivanvector.
I think the Bible says that some babies of the Israelites died in Syria, and anyway that would only be infanticide, but that was a long time ago, so the genocide then was against the "chosen race" or "chosen people" i.e. Jews, which is certainly not the case these days with the exodus from Syria, and I don't see that the people are especially muslim or Christian either, they are just people that we should help as best we can. I wanted to help for the Red Cross or Red Crescent because of the influx into Hungary, but really there is not much I can do except translate. I feel a bit bloody useless that I can't do more. I haven't got money and they don't want money anyway, but I have a place to sleep in, but I can't take in ten thousand people. Si Trew (talk) 15:39, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think Moses kinda walked the other way to avoid it, after his mum had put him in a basket (she would be done for neglect today). But Blame the Assyrians, especially when an Assyrian comes down like a wolf on the fold (Tennyson isn't it). Si Trew (talk) 15:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I was looking purely internally on Wikipedia on purpose. We have for example Bosnian genocide to which Genocide in Bosnia as does Bosnia genocide. I think the point here is to be WP:NEUTRAL. Syrian genocide is red and Syria genocide is red. Taking my assumption that "genocide" means the murder of a particular race of people (which assumes a back-formation from gene or genetics, which is false, that's a proof by contradiction) then what's going on in Syria etc. is not a genocide at all, more just a territorial war. They should have asked the British, we're good at sorting that stuff out. Si Trew (talk) 23:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above points in favour of this. --Rubbish computer 15:43, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I can't think of another topic that people would be looking for except this. Biblical (or Talmudic or Koranik) infanticides are rather far-fetched I think, we can retarget it later. WP:NOTNEWS, but for now, this would seem the best target. Si Trew (talk) 20:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment We have not Syria genocide nor Syrian genocide. I am not suggesting we create them. To declare a special interest: I see the refugees every day at Budapest Eastern Railway Station and it is not a pretty sight, although the Hungarian authorities have moved them mostly to camps now. I cannot help every one of them. I gave some money to a mother feeding her baby, she was not asking for it but it is not the baby's fault, but I cannot help every one. If you have a couple of quid spare, stick it towards the Red Cross or Red Crescent, please. I am skint but I have a roof over my head and heat and light. I would love to help more but I am not good at these languages although I get by in Hungarian and of course speak English a bit, and French, and a bit of German, but that is not very useful, and my First Aid is a bit out of date, although I could manage it in a crisis. Si Trew (talk) 20:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate vote struck. --BDD (talk) 16:10, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - We have reliable sources that refer to the Syrian crisis as such, and it's something that passes the common sense test given the horrific atrocities committed by extremist militants against people that happen to be 'different' or 'the other' (whether that's being a Christian, being a lesbian, being of Kurdish descent, or whatever else). This is a justified redirect. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a really divisive redirect but if we have sources to back it up then we should include it --Lenticel (talk) 00:25, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Genocide still isn't mentioned at the target article. As such, the redirect is inflammatory instead of explanatory. Someone already familiar with the Syrian Civil War might find this useful, but anyone exploring the questions I raised above (Genocide against whom? By whom?) will be pretty obviously disappointed. --BDD (talk) 13:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:10, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I am with BDD on this one, that just because journalists call it a genocide doesn't make it so. The reason I invoked the idea of Moses is I was thinking of the biblical Exodus from Egypt, but that would seem even more confusing. To have a genocide you have to have a race of people you want to extinguish, and BDD laughed the last time I invoked Godwin's Law against myself when I was being rather WP:POINTY) "That's what Hitler said", as the worst invokation possible when I invoked only four votes on something entirely unrelated to this. Now the extermination of the Jews in Europe, the Final Solution, I think you can fairly call a genocide, and perhaps even the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, but I think with this we have to go by WP:NOTNEWS. To be absolutely clear cos I know this can get heated, I am not Juish (I am vaguely C of E). Si Trew (talk) 07:46, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The question of what is or is not 'genocide' is one that's, contrary to expectations, an extremely difficult and contentious matter even if it's one that's worth having. A genocidal application of violence based on political views, gender, ethnic group, sexual orientation, and so on is something that's a part of the matter, without a doubt; see gendercide and politicide in particular. Related articles include We Charge Genocide and the Bosnian genocide case. I suppose you can analogize it to the question of what is is not 'God' and whether God exists; the debate has gone on for decades upon decades, but the debate has a great deal of merit. As well, even though the vast majority of non-atheists in world history have thought of 'God' as being a manly man, with a big bushy beard, huge muscles, and the like, the issue is fluid enough that God could very well be transgender, beyond gender entirely, mostly female, or... well, who knows? As a kid, I thought visually of Mr. Clean.
The thing is that even if the labeling is arguable, it's a common labeling that's done in a wide variety of reliable sources. Utlimately, Wikipedia can't denote morality out in the offline world. As the saying goes: "We report. You decide." I would be voting delete if I didn't see things that pass the reliability test with flying colors (such as nybooks.com) that say exactly what the redirect says. Thus, readers will think in those terms as well. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:39, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well the trouble is essentially that genus is Greek and -cide as the suffix is Latin. WP:NOTDIC. A homicide or fratricide or matricide or infanticide or is perfectly Latin, but genocide ain't, unless I am a dutchman. NOTDIC. Si Trew (talk) 18:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: The purpose of redirects is to get people to articles they're probably looking for, not to be the best titles of articles (that's what article titles are for). If some sources are in fact calling it a genocide, and we're covering the events more neutrally, then we should redirect the non-neutral term to the neutral article; WP's purpose is to be informative, not to police people's language for political correctness. The day we refuse to cough up the article someone needs just because we disapprove of the term they got from somewhere else, and came looking for to find out whether it's an accurate label, is the day we badly fail as an encyclopedia.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:13, 6 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.

Julier river

[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) 16:45, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It does not exists and is misleading. It is wrongly derived from the German name (Julierpass) of the pass 'Pass dal Gülgia'. The river however is called - in Romansh - Gelgia. ZH8000 (talk) 01:28, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep, plausible redirect . I would suggest you to consider that I did not create the redirect just to increase my edit count. It does not matter how it is called in French, German and Italian . It is English wikipedia. And in English, whether correctly or by mistake, it was called just like this: "Julier Valley". The redirect is plausible, if only one bothers to recall that we have not only wikipedia but also google to learn about things you don't know. - üser:Altenmann >t 00:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No, there is no Julier river, nor a Julier Valley. Neither in German, Romansh, French, or Italian, nor in English! It is simply wrong to call it that way (by many obviously), in whatever language. The river is called Julia, or Gelgia, but not Julier. They Valley is either called Sursés, or Oberhalbstein, but not Julier Valley, even not in English. – Now, since the existance of such a redirect could lead to the idea that this is a correct wording (in English), I propose to delete it in order to prevent (further) misunderstandings/misapplications. Just because tourists and English authors make the same mistake does not make it less wrong. -- ZH8000 (talk) 20:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The phonetic similarity between Julia, Julier, and Gülgia is such that this seems like a pretty plausible mistake to make, and there's still the fact that the inaccurate description of it as the "Julier river" is found many times in English language sources (just search it for a few moments). That something is innocently mistaken doesn't mean that it's not a useful redirect; look at how Wikipedia Commons (frequent, easy mistaken) goes to the accurate Wikimedia Commons. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:16, 6 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.

Trinity Baptist Church (Concord, New Hampshire)

[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) 15:22, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating deletion of this redirect. This redirect is out of date, in that the page used to be about the church, with a section about the scandal. It's been turned into a page simply about the scandal, therefore the redirect should be deleted. A search for the church shouldn't result in a forced redirect about a specific scandal related to the church. BenjaCamp (talk) 19:37, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree.--John Foxe (talk) 20:03, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ridiculous. a reader who searches for Trinity Baptist Church (Concord, New Hampshire) will end up at the one article we have, regardless of whether there is a redirect or not. both previous posters have a COI, I believe. Jytdog (talk) 23:33, 27 September 2015 (UTC) Based on your reasoning (and the list of valid reasons for a redirect on Wikipedia:Redirect), I see no reason for a redirect here. I suggest deleting this redirect, and updating the link on the "Trinity Baptist Church" disambiguation page to go to the scandal page. It's unfair to say I have a COI, when all I've done is finished the job of transitioning the article from a location page to a specific article about the event. BenjaCamp (talk) 03:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep valid and plausible redirect. You are welcome to write an article about the church if it is notable about something else. - üser:Altenmann >t 00:54, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see any likelihood that the church itself is notable enough to warrant its own article aside from the scandal. I have noticed how occasionally the Concord, New Hampshire article will link to something having to do with the church (like its non-notable school), and instead through the redirect it links to the scandal. Better just to list the name of the place and not set up a link that's ripe for confusion. --Ken Gallager (talk) 12:11, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Without the redirect someone would still more than likely be able to find the article if they searched for the church's name. I don't think it's necessary, and Google's Knowledge Graph seems to be equating the church's name with the name of the article because of it. Not that that should be the primary reason for changing it, but if there's not a good reason to keep, I think we should get rid of it. BenjaCamp (talk) 04:26, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:57, 4 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.

Angeles City

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 October 11#Angeles City

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_October_4&oldid=1037881752"