Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 September 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 15[edit]

Vhost → Shared web hosting service[edit]

The result of the debate was Re-targeted to virtual hosting. Non-administrator close. Xtifr tälk 08:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The target article has *nothing* to do with to do with Virtual Host (as specified in the redirect reason in the Vhost article history log). Some would be curious what a Vhost is or how they work and they get redirected to an article that explains nothing about it, resulting in possible confusion. The redirect should be deleted.. or a section be written on vhosts.. OR.. vhost should have its own article, in which case the redirect would be removed. Knippschild 22:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Assault of Placentia → Piacenza[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 03:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Topic is not mentioned in target article, so Assault of Placentia would be better as a red link which prompt article creation. I would write a stub, but the problem is that the term gets 0 Google hits outside of Wikipedia and its mirrors. Punkmorten 18:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The inbound links suggest that the title is intended to refer to a Roman battle conducted in 69 as part of the response to the Batavian rebellion. (There have been a remarkable number of other battles throughout history at or near the same site and most of the other "battle of" titles appear to already have been taken.) The other battles in that particular campaign do have stand-alone pages, suggesting that this one probably should as well. Normally, I would say that a temporary link to the city is at least a little bit useful to the reader but in this case I agree that a redlink would be more likely to draw the attention of the experts we need to write an article on the battle itself. Rossami (talk) 02:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

List of Recurring Characters on The Simpsons → List of Recurring Characters on 6teen[edit]

The result of the debate was Re-targeted to List of recurring characters from The Simpsons & tagged {{R from alternate capitalization}}. -- JLaTondre 18:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect that makes no sense, so it should be deleted, if not made into a list. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 17:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedia:Trivia section → Wikipedia:Handling trivia[edit]

The result of the debate was retarget to Wikipedia:Trivia sections. --- RockMFR 05:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that we need this redirect. If anything, it should be redirected to Wikipedia:Trivia sections - Ta bu shi da yu 13:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

West Germany national football team → Germany national football team[edit]

The result of the debate was keep. WjBscribe 03:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV-fork which is misused to make believe that despite the ca. 100 year continuity of the German nft (as accepted by FIFA and UEFA) there was "a separate West German team" 1949-1990, when East Germany existed as a separate state and football team. People have tried several times to establish the "West German nft" as an article, it was replaced by a redirect (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Germany national football team). Yet, links to this POV article/redirect had been planted in over 200 articles. When I recently started to correct them, some people reverted (e.g. [1] and even reported me at ANI. I thus request the deletion of the redirect in order to signal the misuse by the red color of the wrong links. -- Matthead discuß!     O       13:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This editor has been brought up to AN/I for his continuing efforts to remove all mention of 'West Germany' from en.wikipedia. He's been warned about the lack of consensus, and the established pattern on wikipedia. He doesn't seem to believe that germany was ever divided, and persists in this behavior despite numerous talk pages and an AN/I discussion. He's here now in a sour grapes action. He's previously attempted an AfD on the article, which closed without consensus. At this point, his editing has transistioned into the Tendentious editing territory. He continues, agianst consensus, to push his POV, the very definition of tendentious editing. ThuranX 14:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me? East Germany existed for some decades, but this does not warrant e.g. marking the 1988-89 Borussia Dortmund team with a (hypothetical) "Flag of West Germany", and the 1990-91 team with the "Flag of Germany", as had been done e.g. at Michael Rummenigge [2] before I fixed it. His 1989-90 season in Dortmund is missing, apparently someone could not make up his mind whether the town and team was located in West Germany or Germany during ongoing changes in East Germany? It would be only a laughable mess caused by undereducated people if it wouldn't have been intentionally created by dead serious people like you. Maybe "the established pattern on wikipedia" should stay to continue exposing its cluelessness and bias. -- Matthead discuß!     O       14:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious keep, and the links to it are legitimate too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then provide references for your claim that West Germany national football team and Germany national football team were/are different. -- Matthead discuß!     O       14:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They were not. That's why we have a redirect. You know what a redirect is, do you? D'oh. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know that several editors insist to have [[West Germany national football team]] in articles, not [[Germany national football team]], as my edits have been reverted, e.g. by the editor [3] who has filed the ANI report. Would you please explain why you call the links to the redirect rather than the article legitimate, and then say "they were not different"? When they were not different, why are links to a redirect more legitimate than to the article itself? -- Matthead discuß!     O       17:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Given that Wikipedia allows redirects from common misspellings and other errors, even if Matthead's ridiculous arguments were true, enough people would be "wrong" for this to be a useful redirect. This is insane. ArtVandelay13 18:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - even if the terminology is wrong, deleting the redirect just to indicate the improper usages is not the way to go about it. The team and the country were commonly known in English as West Germany, so this is a perfectly legitimate redirect. - PeeJay 18:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep while I have sympathy for Matthead's position re West Germany/Germany, this re-direct is perfectly valid. - fchd 19:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's also worth pointing out that removing this redirect would be hugely counterproductive to Matthead's agenda, namely to inform people that West Germany-nft and Germany-nft are the same entity. ArtVandelay13 19:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If a person is looking for an article on the German national football team during the Cold War and types West Germany national football team, should we delete the page and tell them that Germany is no longer divided, and as such no mention of West Germany should exist? This RDR is completely plausible and useful for historical research. As a side note to the nominator, this Wikipedia discussion page is not meant for setting examples, and you shouldn't assume that such terms are being "misused" by good faith editors. Next time, please review Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 01:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per PeeJay and the other "keep" recommenders. --Metropolitan90 03:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:POINT if anything repoint to subheading Agathoclea 16:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all the editors above.--Vitriden 17:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deep per Vitriden. Marlith T/C 19:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Reflects common English usage of the era, facilitates searches, creates clear distinctions within a historical context. While the editor in question has a track record that includes lots of decent edits, this POV pushing is unpalatable and really unnecessary. Smacks of a whitewash. Be cool, Matth, be cool. Wiggy! 01:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I would also like the West Germany national team article to be reestablished, per the West Germany article exists as a separate country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xhandler (talk • contribs) 11:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Separate country"? Separate from what? Thanks for exposing once again what is wrong with and on Wikipedia. You can promote calling the Federal Republic of Germany in its 11-state form until Oct 1990 "West Germany", but nobody can make it a separate country from the Federal Republic of Germany in its 16-state form since Oct 1990. Try splitting the history of the USA, from 13 initial states to 50 states, into "separate countries", and see what they will tell you. While the Flags of the United States were altered for each change, the Flag of Germany remains the same, it was even used by the GDR concurrently for a decade. Attempting to split the team article again is also futile - the team remained and remains the same, no matter how some want to call it during a part of its history. -- Matthead discuß!     O       02:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've told you once, and I'll tell you again. If you feel this is an important issue (and for some reason, I think you do), go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany and ask for help. There may be more people who think the same way and who support your opinion, since you are pretty much alone here--Vitriden 11:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, can someone close this please? There have been no votes in support, and the redirect will be broken until the debate is closed. ArtVandelay13 17:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Alternative music → Alternative rock[edit]

The result of the debate was keep. WjBscribe 03:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural nom, from here. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 00:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC) Alternative music includes a lot of genres, and only one of those is alternative rock. It is like I redirect singer to Johnny Rotten just because he is a singer too. Really it is better a red link than a wrong link, because it confuses the reader and it avoids that somebody writes correctly the article. You can get more information and references here Libertad y Saber 21:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC) Could be one informal sinonym, but it is not really. It is like redirect world music to african music. Absurdity. [reply]

Speedy keep Frequently-used synonym, and original nominator's rationale for deletion in AfD is unjustifiable, in my opinion. Additionally, other wikis can't be used as references. WesleyDodds 01:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not the reference, it has the references. Some serious reference about if they are really Synonymous? --Libertad y Saber 02:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. That's how Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative music treats the terms based upon sources. Also, I can't read Spanish (which used to upset my grandma, for one). WesleyDodds 02:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A Wikiproject is a reputable publication? I'm sorry to give you in spanish. Some in English: About alternative music has a lot of genres inside. About that is really indepedent obout rock alternative and has different definition. Do you have someone reputable reference? --Libertad y Saber 03:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant was that's how the WikiProject treats the terms; there are a lot of synonyms for alternative rock after all. Speaking of the links you provided, the first is a record store and I don't get how the second is a reputable source. But the larger point is that you nominated this redirect for deletion because as you said "it is better a red link than a wrong link, because it confuses the reader and it avoids that somebody writes correctly the article". That is not a reason I find sensible and this is not the appropriate course of action to take to argue your point. WesleyDodds 04:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because it confuse the lector is not a reason. Beacuse it make that we haven´t article serious about is not a reason. A reason is a wikiprojecto. And no references. Ok. I withdraw the discussion and sorry for inconveniences. Keep.--Libertad y Saber 12:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Alternative music is a synonym for alternative rock, and all those listed in Category:Alternative music are rock-subgenres. Even alternative dance uses elements of indie rock and progressive folk music is essentialy folk prog rock. Even spoken word soul (not sure it should be there) incorporates elements of rock. Note that other "alternative" subgenres such as alternative hip hop are not considered a sub-genre of alternative music. CloudNine 08:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of use: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. Just from a quick scan of Google. CloudNine 08:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, where is wrote "alternative music is the same than alternative rock"? Alternative rock is alternative music because it is one of the genres knows like alternative music. But keep. I withdraw the discussion and sorry for inconveniences.--Libertad y Saber 12:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What other music genres are referred to as "alternative music"? Just alternative rock as far as I can see. CloudNine 12:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just only 57. But keep. I withdraw the discussion and sorry for inconveniences.--Libertad y Saber 12:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's no reason to withdraw, let's just wait and see other users comments. I think that 57 articles which are referred to as the same music name definitely deserve a disambig page. Others might not agree with that, but that's what this page is for. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 13:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most of those are either essentially synonyms of alternative rock (indie rock), subgenres (math rock, Britpop) or specific scenes (Lion Pop). They're not referred to as alternative music; the alternative music category consists of subgenres of alternative music (i.e. when people say "alternative music"; they don't mean "Paisley Underground", they mean "alternative rock"). ({{Alternativerock}} is an example of this) CloudNine 13:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So then is Dōjin music the only exception? And is this considered a worldwide view outside of the U.S. and the U.K.? - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 13:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's closer to the independent music ethos, rather than a subgenre of alternative rock/music. In fact, I'll replace it with the Indie music cat. CloudNine 19:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Sorry if I seem a bit ignorant, it's because I don't follow the alternative music scene, which is why I've asked these questions. Naturally if someone objects, I just try to make sure all points are considered. Since there was only one exception to this case(Dōjin music), I'm changing my suggestion above, per CloudNine. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 01:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - since redirects are cheap. David Pro 15:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just so everyone is clear, like CloudNine said the alternative music category is meant to categorize the alt-rock subgenres, movemements, and scenes. It's not like alternative rock means something specific; quite the opposite. WesleyDodds 20:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it is the common definityon of it. Marlith T/C 19:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Orange (hue or color or colour since Wikipedia can't come to a consesnus on spelling) → Orange (colour)[edit]

The result of the debate was speedy delete based on vandalism. Page deleted by User:Aecis. Non-admin closure of discussion. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 17:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A disruptive redirect. LAME!!!! SYSS Mouse 01:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2007_September_15&oldid=1138575071"