Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 December 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 20[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 20, 2009

National Gun Association[edit]

The result of the discussion was Deleted. Redirect is confusing. Disambiguation seems like over-kill. The search function seems like the ideal solution in this case. However, if anyone feels strongly about it, feel free to create a bad. -- JLaTondre (talk) 20:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned with this redirect to National Rifle Association for two primary reasons, first because I have been unable to locate any source which states that the National Rifle Association may also be known as the National Gun Association, and second because I believe the redirect may have NPOV issues.

By glancing at the redirect's short history, it can be seen that the redirect actually began as an article, referencing TV episodes in which a fictional National Gun Association was mentioned, most likely as a parody of the NRA [1] (however this claim was never sourced). This content received a template stating that the article may not be notable, and was later replaced first with a redirect to the American Dad! episode which featured a fictional organization named the 'National Gun Association' [2]. This change was reverted [3], and after an expired PROD on the article, the information was merged into a new section in the NRA article [4] and the National Gun Association article changed into a redirect to that section [5]. The information merged into the NRA article seems to never have been sourced [6] and the entire section was eventually removed [7] (by an anonymous editor with no edit summary given). Noticing this removal of content, a user changed the redirect in question to point to the NRA article (no specific section) [8], removing the redirect from merge tag and noting in the edit summary that the merged content had been removed from the NRA article. This is how the redirect stands today.

While the original intent of the redirect was in fact to point to information merged into the NRA article from the National Gun Association article, because that section was removed it is no longer serving its original purpose. Furthermore, I believe that this redirect has NPOV issues because it does not explain why National Gun Association (mentioned in multiple TV shows, most with a critical or negative point of view) redirects to National Rifle Association. Instead of bringing a user to a section which explains that the National Gun Association served as a parody in some TV shows, instead it now seems to imply that the National Rifle Association is synonymous with the National Gun Association. Aka042 (talk) 07:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Just to address Wikipedia's policy on neutrality of redirects it is not the neutrality of the redirect's title I am contesting, but instead the implied neutrality by redirecting a fictional organization that has no sources to suggest it is parodying the NRA to the NRA article. Regardless, based on the removal of the 'Parodies' section from the NRA article the redirect is defunct. --Aka042 (talk) 07:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman 01:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Centraltower Interstate Center[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 that the page (an article) was nominated in the wrong place. Non-admin closure. — The Man in Question (in question) 00:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion. Reason 'Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes)' Eire1130 (talk) 22:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Charles, Count of Batthyani[edit]

The result of the discussion was Kept. -- JLaTondre (talk) 20:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete under R7. This is an even more implausible than Count Batthyani, nominated below, although most of the argument there also applies to this. Charles is not the English form of the name Karl (which is Karl or Carl); the Hungarian form of the name Charles is Károly. Si Trew (talk) 22:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. He was not the Count of Batthyány. His family name was Batthyány. He was the Count of Német-Ujvár. Si Trew (talk) 12:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So it would seem. Still, some have made that mistake: [9]. — The Man in Question (in question) 14:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Count Batthyani[edit]

The result of the discussion was Re-targeted to Batthyány. Directing to a specific person does not seem reasonable as it could apply to multiple members of the family. -- JLaTondre (talk) 20:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Phil Bridger removed a PROD I placed at Count Batthyani with the edit summary:

Remove WP:PROD tag as it doesn't apply to redirects. If you really think this is implausible (although it seems perfectly plausible to me that a non-Hungarian speaker would guess at this spelling) then try WP:RFD

I am sorry I listed it in the wrong place, but his edit summary is the main thing here, since it may seem at first sight like a plausible typo but I think really it is not, for reasons that individually seem slight but I believe compound one another:

  1. I accept this could plausibly be a typo or an incorrect spelling, or in fact two, since it misses the accent and spells the last letter wrong. But Hungarian surnames that used to be spelt ending in -Y, indicating nobility, are now often spelt ending in -I, to be more egalitarian. So, that is not the problem in itself, although if someone is wise enough to know he is a Count, I suggest they would be wise enough to know he ends in Y (or could), or are copying it from somewhere else that should know better. Under this criterion, a rather weak R7.
  2. Of course making a {{R from title without diacritics}} is quite reasonable, too, but this is not a redirect from such a title, since it does not redirect to Count Batthyány nor Count Batthyáni neither of which indeed exist (although one does for Charles, Count of Batthyani (to Karl Josef Batthyány), and for Count Lajos Batthyany, to whose redirect title this one also links. Under this criterion, perhaps R7.
  3. However, all (?) males in the noble family Batthyány are in fact counts, so the redirect to Count Lajos Batthyány seems unduly specific. Since Lajos Batthyány is not (at the moment) considered the primary topic for "Batthyány" it seems unreasonable that it should be for "Count Batthy(a/á)n(y/i)". Similarly, there is no redirect for the simpler Batthyani (no accent) or Batthyáni (with accent). Under this criterion, R1.
  4. There is in fact a redirect from Count Lajos Batthyany which is (in effect) an R from title without diacritics, since Count Lajos Batthyány (with accent) redirects to Lajos Batthyány, and so does the one without an accent. Under this criterion, perhaps R1 again.

As I say, none of these individually seem at all strong, but add little to little and we have a big pile, as Ovid said.

So, my preferred solution would be to get rid of the forms ending in -I for specific people, including the Count Batthyani forms, and to simply redirect Batthyáni (with accent), and Batthyani (without accent) and Batthyany (without accent) to the DAB page Batthyány (with accent, where it states "The members of this family bear the title count or countess (Graf/Gräfin) Batthyány von Német-Ujvár.")

I could of course also change Count Batthyani to redirect to Batthyány without bothering you good people about it, but really I think that if someone searching manages to make three mistakes in one search, there is a limit how much we should expect to cater for that, especially considering the combinatorial explosion of redirects that would entail such a policy where the search engine offers quite a better set of results than these numerous obscure redirects. Of course it is unlikely that many more members of this family are likely to be added to Wikipedia, so the explosion is unlikely to happen there, but that is not to say that many more articles might use these redirects and so unwittingly be incorrect in themselves (as for spelling) and also perhaps link to the wrong chap.

I do realise that WP:NOTBROKEN might apply here, but in my opinion it is broken, in that by not redirecting to the DAB page, it kinda "hides" other members of the family. Perhaps at least as a compromise position I should just change it to link to the DAB, but ideally I'd like to get rid of this altogether. The specific "Count" redirects (with forename) seem to me unlikely search terms but are doing no harm. This one I think is a redirect too far in that it is "wrong" in three different directions all at once (accent, spelling, target), where one would seem to be useful, two marginally useful, but three somewhat too implausible. I can see from my own argument here the recommendation might be simply to change the target, but I should like advice here first, since this is by no means a unique situation with redirects to Hungarian names (for which, to add more joy, the native form uses the Eastern name order, so where does it end?)

Best wishes Si Trew (talk) 22:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. But surely having it redirect to [the same place is] Charles, Count of Batthyani is equally plausible, then? Which is to say, since neither is considered the primary topic for Batthyány right now, it should redirect to the DAB? I don't want to put words in your mouth but that seems implicit in your wanting to keep Charles, Count of Batthyani. Si Trew (talk) 12:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm…I'm just saying it should be kept because it's doing no harm. — The Man in Question (in question) 14:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it is doing no harm if for no other reason that nobody is looking at it (the few hits this month were probably just mine, although it has had a hit maybe about once a week as a long-term thing). I'd still prefer to redirect it to the DAB page, though, if you've no objections then I can do that and withdraw this from RFD. I just wanted others' opinions before I did so. Si Trew (talk) 14:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Immoral Study[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 22:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Found this in the new page patrol: Reason for deletion: R9

"If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains little information on the subject. In these cases, it is better that the target article contain a redlink pointing back to the redirect."

If Immoral Study 2 is the second in the series, why does the first redirect to it? Seems quite odd to me. Taelus (talk) 13:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete to encourage the creation of an article on the actual topic. Right now it actively serves as a hindrance to anyone who wants to know something about Immoral Study, because Wikipedia will come up in Google search when other sources will actually discuss the topic. — The Man in Question (in question) 19:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep / turn into softredirect since the target is a sequel, it is quite plausible someone will search for it without the number, as people will forget if things have numbers on them. Note, I've tagged the redirect with {{R with possibilities}} 76.66.192.35 (talk) 05:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know this game series, the first game was very crappy, though the second one was interesting, If someone will want this crap, I'm 100% sure that they'll want the second game PornoBoyz (talk) 17:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment you could always turn it into a "series" article. From Google, it appears there's an "Immoral Study 3"... 76.66.192.35 (talk) 13:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, as this has been relisted, I will re-affirm my rationale: Policy recommends having a red link to encourage article creation, not a soft redirect or redirect. Additionally, we cannot assume people will not be looking for the first when they search for the term. Finally, it could be a series article yes, but we should still delete it for now per R9, as a red link will encourage creation. Either way, it's potentially confusing in its current existance. --Taelus (talk) 17:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. And since no one has further voted, I will clarify mine: (1) "Immoral Study" is not "Immoral Study 2", nor does this article give information on the topic, so it is unhelpful. (2) Deleting the page will encourage its creation as a valid article. — The Man in Question (in question) 23:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Middle Earth/Olorin[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SUB = "Disallowed uses: Using subpages for permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia". Every redirect exists on its own (e.g., Olorin). Very few pageviews. Plus, the word is spelled "Middle-earth", not "Middle Earth". (P.S. Sorry I didn't format them all properly). — The Man in Question (in question) 11:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all, ancient and harmless. Deleting these breaks links in old versions of articles from the time when subpages were acceptable. No advantage of deletion has been presented. — Kusma talk 12:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that none of the pages has any content, so they are not disallowed subpages. — Kusma talk 12:20, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition, WP:RFD#KEEP says these should be left alone. Make that a speedy keep. — Kusma talk 17:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - Unlikely redirects. Garion96 (talk) 16:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, at one time, long long ago, Wikipedia did not have categories, and allowed subpages in article space... 76.66.201.20 (talk) 05:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per Kusma and WP:RFD#KEEP: "old subpage links should be left alone in case there are any existing links on external pages pointing to them." Jonathunder (talk) 23:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Middle Earth/Olorin gets no page views, has no internal links and its history is merely of re-targeting the redirect. Josh Parris 01:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as nominator. Ignore all rules: unused, unlinked, unhelpful. . — The Man in Question (in question) 05:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as unused. No one's going to be typing this in. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 22:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The Church of $cientology[edit]

The result of the discussion was Redirect to Satiric misspelling. Non-admin closure. — The Man in Question (in question) 05:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, but delete as disparaging the subject. — The Man in Question (in question) 11:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hexation[edit]

The result of the discussion was Kept hexation, hexa-root, and hexa-logarithm. Deleted remainder. -- JLaTondre (talk) 20:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also

Delete all. History:

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Colbert Report/wikiality[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 Speedy Delete. — The Man in Question (in question) 22:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SUB: no subpages for permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia. — The Man in Question (in question) 10:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • It has been speedily deleted on my request based on the fact that it qualified for db-vandal when it was first written and db-r3 when someone turned it into a redirect instead of having it deleted then. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Das Dualwiktorkeinekanzlormerklenschroederlowenbraudeadheatlickin'kopf[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete both. Ruslik_Zero 19:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3 and 4 hits on Google respectively. Seven and three pageviews in November. Presumably an approximation of some false German name given as a joke on some random episode of the show. The thought of anyone typing this into search is absurd, and with only three hits on Google, copying and pasting seems unlikely as well. — The Man in Question (in question) 05:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Correct; I found the same results and feel the same way. Delete. Drmies (talk) 05:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. When I saw this just now I thought {{db-vandal}} and the only reason I didn't go through with that is because the same thing occurred to me, that the word might have been used on the show once. But if it was, it didn't enter pop culture sufficiently for Google to have any indication of it. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. Just someone's joke. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 02:00, 21 December 2009 (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/2009_December_20&oldid=1136448644"