Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 November 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 27[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 27, 2009

Lord Byron[edit]

The result of the discussion was Keep. Between redirecting the title to the peerage article that lists all person who are holders of this title and actually moving the article on the poet to the title itself, there is clear consensus that the current redirect leads to the person currently most commonly associated with title and is (together with the customary hat note) therefore the most appropriate solution. Note: this discussion has run somewhat longer to take into account the period of the missing tag. The discussion was still lively with a table as illustration of the primary topic argument added, but without any noticeable change in positions or arguments. It goes without saying that this can still be updated if the situation changes and more queries for another Lord Byron arrive. Tikiwont (talk) 21:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC), expanded 09:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural notes

Procedural note: The RFD template was missing from or not visible on Lord Byron for about 19 1/2 hours ending shortly before 15:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC). Please take this into account when deciding when to close the debate davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since I goofed on the redirect tag, I agree that the discussion should stay open a while longer. (I don't agree with the tagging above the redirect, but if that's the guideline, then that is the guideline!) --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 15:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Urge retargetting to Baron Byron, per WP:NCBRITPEER convention #3: "An honorific such as Lord Normanby may refer to any of the holders of the associated title, so can redirect to a page about the title itself." There have been 12 "Lords Byron" in the past, each the sole "Lord Byron" of his incumbency; there is one alive today, with sole current claim to the title; but Wikipedia is pointing to one of the dead men instead. Not even this Admiral: With Lord Byron at the Sandwich Islands in 1825. Suggest reading the bios in the Baron Byron series if you doubt that the title referred to each of them. Also see prior conversation at Talk:Lord Byron. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 08:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep. Quite frankly, the target article should be at Lord Byron, per both basic common sense and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility), which actually says to use the most common name in English whenever there is one. The person is question is both most commonly known as "Lord Byron" and also the person most commonly known as "Lord Byron". Outside of a few very formal lists of peerages, he is not ever known by the title of the current article. Making it difficult for people looking for the famous Lord Byron to find him is Just Plain Wrong. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, Gavia, you omit the all-important IF that follows the portion of WP:NCROY you cite: "use the most common form of the name used in English if none of the rules below cover a specific problem." And one of the criteria is disambiguation. You'd have the article on one man use the same title that also pertains to 12 other men (one of them living), with not even a number to tell them apart, no disambiguation, so WP:NCROY would frown on that right there. Secondly, the more specific section there is 5. British peerage, which is what I cited above as WP:NCBRITPEER. Notice the naming formats used in examples: Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington; William Wedgwood Benn, 1st Viscount Stansgate — personal name, numbered title. This is followed in George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron, and the other Baron Byron articles.

British peerage naming conventions long antedate Wikipedia, so fortunately we needn't struggle to invent rules from scratch, just follow the existing conventions. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 06:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

President Obama is most commonly addressed as "Mister President", and is at this time the one person most commonly so addressed. The reason we don't redirect Mister President to point solely to him is that the honorific pertains to his office and not to him as an individual; there were others before him, and will be others after him, who share the same honorific; no matter how notable that individual himself is, the reader is better served by having the honorific redirect to an explanation of the term than to the individual's article. All these considerations apply to the "Lord Byron" redirect. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 05:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Leave alone Gavia said it better than I could. I fixed up the hat-notes a bit at the target, so if anyone was confused by this redirect they will find their way to Baron Byron more easily. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The hat-note at the target was not the problem. In fact, the hat-note at the target was itself a recently added title disambiguation note, which now has been made somewhat murkier by bringing up claims about ownership of the Barony itself, which is not what a dabnote is intended for.

The problem with saying "commonly known as Lord Byron" about just one of the Barons Byron is that each of them was commonly known (and addressed) by that honorific during their incumbency as Baron, between succeeding to the title and dying themselves, as is the present Baron Byron today.

I mentioned above the book about the voyage to Hawaii commanded by the poet's cousin and successor "Lord Byron". The poet's great-uncle and predecessor, the "Wicked Lord" or "Devil Byron", is also referred to as "Lord Byron" throughout his own article.

I think it would be a capital mistake, inducing confusion, to encourage people to lean upon such a shared term ("Lord Byron") rather than his distinctive individual name ("George Gordon Byron"), to identify the poet. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 05:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: mistake, you are technically correct, but that horse left the barn door ages ago. Here's an analogous situation: When you say "Buddha" to a non-Buddhist who is not familiar with Buddhism, what's the first thing that comes to his mind? Probably Gautama Buddha, which is where Buddha redirects. What should come to mind in a perfect world is either Buddhahood or List of Buddhas, two things that probably come to mind to most practicing Buddhists. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You make a good argument for correcting that particular mistake, or at least interceding a very good disambiguation page to explain those differing concepts, so the reader can proceed a little better informed (if s/he was not already).

Should the term "Mister President" redirect to George Washington, or Abraham Lincoln, or ____________, because he's the President we think of first, never mind all the other Presidents there have been, or the one there is now?

Wikipedia's reliance on consensus over expertise unfortunately gives us a vulnerability to perpetuating common misconceptions, but I think — having identified one — we ought to try not to perpetuate it, rather to counteract it as best we can. Our job here is to preserve and spread information, not misinformation. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 06:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How redirects are handled is a matter of style not objective fact. While we can't have an article that says "the earth is flat" even if 80% of the world thinks it is, we can have a naming convention that says we will use common names even if they are not the "official" names or are not coherent with long-established but little-used-outside-specific-fields-of-study naming conventions. However, this discussion is turning into a broader discussion than just this one redirect - it's turning into a discussion about how we should handle cases where a specific convention, such as WP:NCBRITPEER, are based on an authority outside Wikipedia and are used by experts in the field, but where the world outside of scholars or another relatively small group has adopted a common name that doesn't fit in with this convention. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 13:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why you think the term "Lord Byron" as pertains to the 6th Baron Byron "doesn't fit in with this convention". Of course it does. That is the honorific that accompanies the title. Every Baron Byron, from the 1st through the 13th, has been addressed as "Lord Byron". If the poet George Gordon Byron had not inherited the baronial title, he would not have been known as "Lord Byron", merely by his full name or as "Byron". He is called "Lord Byron" for the same reason that every other Baron Byron is called "Lord Byron". He has no greater claim to the title than any other of them; and in the present day, no claim equal to that of the living incumbent (13th) Baron. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 03:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "Lord Byron", used without context, nearly always refers to the poet. WP:NCROY does not and should not address every possible situation, and so when we have a subject who is known for activities other than his nobility, we can and should fall back on WP:UCN. Powers T 16:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible that the above "nearly always" unconsciously draws upon the context of poetry and literature, which would naturally tend to focus attention on the poet and writer? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 22:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anything's possible. But my point is more that someone who asks "Have you heard of Lord Byron?" is far more likely to be speaking of the poet than the current title holder. Powers T 01:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That depends on whether they're "far more likely to be speaking of" Regency literary history than other periods between the English Civil Wars and the present; or of Romantic poetry than other topics such as current affairs, politics, legal news; the living Lord Byron isn't huddled up in a cave, you know. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 03:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Baron Byron - We should have redirects to where they belong. If someone knows "Lord Byron" as George Gordon Byron, then they can figure it out on the Baron Byron page. It is like claiming that since people would know Obama as President of the United States that the page on President of the United States should somehow redirect there. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is a general encyclopedia and that person is what is almost universally meant. Anything else is pedantry, and people should not have to figure it out on a disam page for very famous people. The various presidents of the US are much more nearly known than the various Lord Byrons. The correct analogy is the Obama redirects to Barack Obama because that is what is almost always looked for. DGG ( talk ) 17:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that Lord Byron definitely refers to the title more commonly than anything else. The fact that George Gordon Byron would be shortened to Lord Byron is pride on the fact that he was Baron Byron. Thus, the short naming of him would show that the common use of Lord Byron would be referring to the title Baron Byron. President Obama is called President Obama instead of Barack Obama because of the title. It is not his name, but a short form of the status. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, throughout Byron's life, Lord Byron referred to William Byron, 5th Baron Byron, whose fearsome reputation cast quite a bit upon Byron's own life. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
«The correct analogy is the Obama redirects to Barack Obama...» — And that dabnotes Obama (disambiguation), acknowledging that even a relatively exotic name like "Obama" has many other referents. As for the far more common Byron (name), well, see that list. But specifically "Lord Byron" is not a family surname, it's an honorific pertaining to a title of British peerage; it should redirect to that title. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 01:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ideally, per wikipedia's common name policy the article on the poet should be at Lord Byron. While there are other peers with the same title, hardly any of our readers are interested in those Barons. The idea of Redirecting to something vague like Baron Byron hardly sounds like something we should even bother considering. We should always work toward serving our readers. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 18:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
«something vague like Baron Byron» — That's not at all "vague"; it's defined by Letters Patent, and there's been only one at a time since 1643. They're specifically numbered to distinguish them, "1st Baron Byron" through "13th Baron Byron". Whereas you'd prefer a vague, unnumbered "Lord Byron" — a term by which each of those men was in turn addressed — as the title for an article on just one of them. Go figure.

And we could redirect President of the United States to Abraham Lincoln (or pick the polled favorite); "while there are other Presidents with the same title (Millard Fillmore, Rutherford B. Hayes), hardly any of our readers are interested in those Presidents." — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 23:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Except, of course, that the latter is obviously not even remotely true. Powers T 01:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies. I meant unclear rather than vague. Unclear because readers expecting to see an article on the poet would end up in an article on Baron Byron instead. Since, overwhelmingly, readers typing Lord Byron are seeking the poet, we should take them straight to the article on the poet without fuss. For the few who might be looking for one of the other barons, the hat note on the poet's article does the job more than adequately. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 05:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lord Byron" refers to the poet (at all) because he was a Baron Byron, one of the Barons Byron, and refers to him no more than to any of the other Barons Byron. There's the sticking point. We're not discussing the redirect of the plain surname Byron here; that already redirects to the poet. But the honorific "Lord Byron" pertains to the title "Baron Byron", and to that the poet's only claim is that he too was one of the Barons Byron; he has no more claim to it than any other Baron Byron. Fame may have left him peerless in recognition by his surname. But (in this one case) "peerage" means just that — those who preceded and succeeded him in his peerage were his peers in rank and respect as "Lord Byron", not his lessers in any way whatsoever. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 06:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not about who claims the title, as it is not up to Wikipedia to adjudicate such claims; this should solely be about what the majority of readers expect to find when they put "Lord Byron" into the search box. Powers T 13:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's what a search finds, but we're discussing a redirect. A "Lord Byron" redirect that goes to Baron Byron will show George Gordon Byron several times, including his face and (more than once) the description as "English Romantic poet", while anyone looking for any of the other Lords Byron will also see their targets listed. Thus all the redirect users will be served, not just "most" of them. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 22:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • .... According to the usage of The International Byron Society, a resource listed at the foot of "George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron, they refer to him up top as "Lord George Gordon Byron", and thereafter "Lord Byron" (or more often just "Byron") for short, but if you use the "Societies" tab at left, they indicate the British Byron Society's President is... Lord Byron. No name specified there, because they mean the living one. They know the poet's neither the sole nor the primary claimant; the title's living holder is. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 10:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As the nominator, I don't think you need to reiterate your position with a bolded recommendation. Powers T 01:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is. As I've already said at Talk:Lord Byron, most readers who type "Lord Byron" into a search box are looking for George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron (but very few readers will know to type that exact title into a search box). There's no reason to send them to a disambiguation page. Those readers who are looking for a different Lord Byron (a much smaller number, I'm sure), can get to Baron Byron through the hatnote at the top of George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron. Incidentally, if you look at the incoming links to Lord Byron, many of them, probably most by a fair margin, are for the poet. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some of them time travelers, no doubt: Richard Molyneux, 2nd Viscount Molyneux (1620/23?-1654) links to Lord Byron from considerably before the poet's birth. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 03:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. (Although arguably the article should not refer to "Lord Byron" at that point, since he was only created Baron after the battle referred to.) --Akhilleus (talk) 04:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible Keep. The poet is only referred to as Lord Byron in most literary references, and the disambig is exactly what is needed so that users who only know him as "Lord Byron" can find his article easily. Arguing that some barely-remembered historical character once referred to someone else as "Lord Byron" is irrelevant: the poet is the only Lord Byron to have any significant notability in the real world. Removing or redirecting this to "Baron Byron" would be confusing and pedantic. --NellieBly (talk) 04:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
«the poet is the only Lord Byron to have any significant notability in the real world» — Have you actually read the other biographies in the Baron Byron series? I might have thought somewhere, among those men who served loyally and with distinction the Crown that ennobled them, you might have found at least one as notable as an expatriate profligate who spent his last years in exile seducing and abandoning other men's wives. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 04:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And you will note that everyone knew William Byron, 5th Baron Byron as Lord Byron, too. The poet lived under the "Wicked Lord"'s shadow. Those who bought With Lord Byron at the Sandwich Islands in 1825 likewise were under no delusion they'd be reading about a man who'd died in Greece in 1824. The above article Akhilleus fixed was set in the English Civil War between Charles I and Parliament, during which the first Lord Byron's baronial title was created. The International Byron Society, of all groups in the world the one most inclined to focus first on the poet, concedes primacy in the title to the living Lord Byron in the very way they list him, not having to specify his name first, as they do when speaking of "Lord George Gordon Byron". — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 08:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The distinction is "everyone knew". — The Man in Question (gesprec) · (forðung) 11:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, vs. present tense, the living, current, incumbent, (13th) Lord Byron, who incidentally is listed as President of the British Byron Society. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 19:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right now, very few people know of George Gordon Byron - he is rarely taught in schools and people would know him by his name or full title (as per statements referring to both Norton and Oxford editions of poetry which are used when teaching Byron). "Lord Byron" might have been a title known by a select minority of people and popularized, but it is far from being mainstream or the common use. As of right now, Byron isn't mainstream or common, so there is no real common use. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the thing, TMiQ: George Gordon Byron was addressed as "Lord Byron" because he was 6th Baron Byron. Those other Barons Byron were each also addressed as "Lord Byron" because each was also nth Baron Byron. He has no greater claim to the title than any of them, and certainly not equal claim to the living incumbent when spoken of in the present tense. Set the specific context to Regency literary history / Romantic poetry in order to disambiguate, and that would be another matter. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 00:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is, or even better, move the article to this title. This is about as clear an application of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC as anyone could wish for. We are not concerned with who has what "claim" to the title, only with how many readers are likely to be looking for what topic (and whether they recognize the article title as referring to the topic they seek).--Kotniski (talk) 08:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse redirect. Worldwide, the bulk of the references to a person named Lord Byron pertain to the poet (I would say that it's between 80 and 90 percent). So it's the primary use of the topic (as virtually every English language source mentioning poetry and other works by this person refers to him as "Lord Byron" and rarely addended with his given name or title). Thus this should be the name of article, not the redirect... with hatnotes for Baron Byron and Lord Byron (disambiguation) (the latter a sorely needed disambiguation page for all the other Lord Byrons as much of the world would not connect the word "Lord" with "Baron" - there are also Wikipedia articles named Lord Byron (Thomson), Lord Byron (chronology), Lord Byron of Broadway (film), among others). While Wikipedia is often accused of Americentrism, the arguments for deletion are clearly Anglocentric in nature - both ignore the rest of the word that Wikipedia reaches. (NOTE: the list of roughly 519,000 Google hits of the search of "Lord Byron" in quotation marks shows only pages dealing with the poet until Page 5 of the results... on which there are two mentions of the Hotel Lord Byron in Rome and the opera Lord Byron by Virgil Thomson. Clearly there is one dominant use of the name here).147.70.242.54 (talk) 17:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
«the arguments for deletion are clearly Anglocentric in nature» — What "arguments for deletion"? No-one has proposed deletion. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 01:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is. The overwhelming majority of incoming searches for "Lord Byron" will be looking for the poet. (Evidence: a Google search for Lord Byron goes for pages before reaching any of the other Lords Byron; places or works named after the poet show up long before any of the other holders of the title.) The minority who are seeking one of the other Lords Byron can use the hatnote. The other Lords Byron have the "right" to use the name and title, but in world culture the Romantic poet overshadows all the others to such an extent that except in a tiny minority of circumstances, when a person says "Lord Byron" they are referring to "mad, bad, and dangerous to know".

    Nobody is disputing that Byron should redirect to the poet, because he's overwhelmingly the most likely target of a search for "Byron". The same is true of "Lord Byron". —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A Google search is a common tool used to determine the primary topic for a given name, phrase or title. The point is to measure, roughly, how significant or common a given usage of a particular phrase is in the world beyond Wikipedia. Another tool is the article traffic stats: the poet's article was visited over 50,000 times in November. The first Lord Byron's page was visited only 432 times. The opera got 147 hits, and so forth. All the other Lords Byron and other subjects to which the title "Lord Byron" could refer are several orders of magnitude less likely to be read than the article on the poet. This suggests that readers are far more likely to be looking for the poet than any of the other Lords Byron. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, that's a WP:GHITS (WP:GOOGLEHITS) argument, one of the "arguments to avoid". Given that closing this topic isn't a matter of counting !votes but of weighing arguments, throwing an "argument to avoid" into the scales doesn't help. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 07:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When the figures are that overwhelming, and combined with other evidence too, I don't think it's an argument to avoid. This is simply a very obvious case of a primary topic, we all know which Lord Byron is overwhelmingly best known even before any evidence is presented; the Google hits and so on just confirm the obvious. Do you have any evidence to suggest that any of the other Lord Byrons are of comparable interest to that of the poet?--Kotniski (talk) 09:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I return to my first point, that "Lord Byron" as an honorific actually pertains to Baron Byron — which lists all the actual Lords Byron,* including the poet, thereby both summing their "hits"/interest and disambiguating the references.

(* Not secondary "Lord Byron"s like people taking the nickname or hotels or artistic works so named.) — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 10:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GHITS is an argument to avoid in the context of deletion. This is a discussion about disambiguation, and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (part of Wikipedia:Disambiguation) allows for the use of Google, as well as the article traffic stats, which Sizzle has chosen to ignore. I quote: "When there is a well-known primary topic for an ambiguous term, name or phrase, much more used than any other topic covered in Wikipedia to which the same word(s) may also refer, then that term or phrase should either be used for the title of the article on that topic or redirect to that article." Nobody is saying that the term "Lord Byron" doesn't pertain to the other Barons Byron. We're just saying that the poet is the primary topic for the phrase "Lord Byron", and therefore readers who type in "Lord Byron" should be taken first to that page. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 13:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By that reasoning, should Astronaut redirect to Neil Armstrong, and Quarterback to Brett Favre? Or whichever astronaut and quarterback, respectively, get overwhelmingly the most ghits? As with "Lord Byron" being an honorific attached to "Baron Byron", I would think "astronaut" and "quarterback" are designations attached to social roles, but perhaps these too should redirect to the individuals most popularly searched for by those terms. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 19:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One does not refer to Astronaut Armstrong or Quaterback Favre. The poet, however, is referred to as "Lord Byron". (cf., references 10, 11, 12, 22, 25, 26, 27, 29, 31, 33, 37, and 40 in the article - none of which appear to feel the need to specify which particular Lord Byron they are referring to.)--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 19:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
26,200 Ghits for "Astronaut Armstrong"; 30,300 Ghits for "Quarterback Favre"; nor did With Lord Byron at the Sandwich Islands in 1825 specify which particular Lord Byron it referred to (the poet had died the previous year). Do you often make assertions without checking them?

The difference being that Astronaut Armstrong and Quarterback Favre are unique identifiers, as opposed to, say, President Adams, President Roosevelt, President Bush, Baron Byron — or the latter's honorific "Lord Byron". — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 21:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest you take a look at the actual results that google pulls up for the phrase "Astronaut Armstrong". May I also suggest that you focus on the content of the discussion rather than making gratuitous personal remarks. In simple English, Lord Byron is a very commonly used moniker for the poet whereas Astronaut Armstrong is not a commonly used moniker for the astronaut. Nor is Abraham Lincoln commonly called President of the United States. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 22:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
«Astronaut Armstrong is not a commonly used moniker for the astronaut» — "Astronaut Armstrong recalls moon landing", "Astronaut Armstrong Pitches", "Astronaut Armstrong marks anniversary in his own words", "Astronaut Armstrong Remembers Historic Apollo 11 Mission", "Astronaut Armstrong Eats Meal At Home", "Astronaut Armstrong Tours In Russia", "Universal to bring astronaut Armstrong's life to big screen", "Astronaut Armstrong Recalls the Origins of Test Pilot Society", "Astronaut Armstrong to Join Lindblad in Antarctica", "Nixon Telephones Armstrong on the Moon" (Astronaut Armstrong: "...Thank You, Mr. President...."), and a screen shot of a 1969 TV broadcast: "ASTRONAUT ARMSTRONG REENTERING LM"..... I leave aside your enormity about Lincoln and "President of the United States", save to say: 1,530,000 Ghits. It is hardly a "gratuitous personal remark" to note that these assertions you've made do not appear to be well supported by facts.

In simple English, Lord Byron is a very commonly used moniker for whoever holds the title of Baron Byron at any given time; it is the honorific form of that title. You will find William Byron, 5th Baron Byron, the "Wicked Lord", the poet's grand-uncle, repeatedly called "Lord Byron" throughout his own article, as indeed he was better known by that than the poet was during the poet's lifetime (the poet lived in his shadow). What helps disambiguate them in books is reference to poetry: The Verses of Lord Byron (or some such) inherently indicates authorship by a poet and not a prosaic admiral or colonel. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 02:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the other Lords Byron are referred to as "Lord Byron" in the limited contexts in which they'd be mentioned. Nobody's questioning that, and the fact that you keep coming back to it suggests to me that you still don't understand WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Having Lord Byron redirect to George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron in no way suggests that he is the only holder of that title. It just suggests that the vast majority of people who type "Lord Byron" into the Wikipedia search box are likely to be looking for him. For the small minority who are looking for one of the other Lords Byron, the hatnote directs them to the appropriate target. The disambiguation rules exist to improve the likelihood that readers will find the article they're looking for with a minimum of fuss. In that spirit, since in any given month tens of thousands more people read George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron than the articles on any of the other Barons Byron, it makes sense for Lord Byron to redirect to the Lord Byron that most readers are probably looking for.

The astronaut and quarterback examples miss the point rather spectacularly; even though the phrases "astronaut Armstrong" and "quarterback Favre" do occur regularly, they do so as descriptions of the individuals in question, not as titles or as substitutes for the individuals' names. "Lord Byron", by contrast, is used in common parlance as the name of the poet, and so it is highly plausible that a reader might type in "Lord Byron" and expect to find an article about the poet. No reader would type in "astronaut" and expect to find a biographical profile of a particular astronaut. It is possible, yes, that a reader might type in "Lord Byron" and hope to find one of the other Barons Byron; however, this is far less likely than the possibility that they would be looking for the club-footed author of "Childe Harold". Disambiguation patterns aim to minimize surprise. Anyone looking for one of the other Lords Byron would almost certainly be aware that the poet is the most famous holder of that title, and so would not be surprised if they typed in "Lord Byron" and arrived at George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron. However, someone looking for the poet who types in "Lord Byron" might not be aware of the other Lords Byron, and so would be surprised if they arrived at Baron Byron. Such a reader would have to read Baron Byron in some detail before reaching the mention of "the famous Romantic poet"; however, the reader looking for one of the other Lords, who arrives at George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron, would very quickly find the hatnote directing him, "For other persons titled Lord Byron, see Baron Byron." This is how disambiguation works. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) To follow up Josiah's point, please see WP:ASTONISH. This was formulated for article writing, but it is also applicable in redirects, disambiguation more generally, and article naming. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Josiah, Davidwr added a hatnote to Baron Byron back on 28 November. Currently it reads: For the English Romantic poet, see George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron. That's the very first line under the article title. Then there's the wikilinked caption under the poet's portrait, his wikilinked mention in 3rd paragraph, and of course his listing entry as "George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron (1788–1824), the English Romantic poet". Please don't claim the poor fellow's buried inconspicuously there. All that's missing are flashing red arrows. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 06:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sizzle, do you actually disagree with the point that many here are making--that most people who look for "Lord Byron" want the poet? Or are you simply saying that "Lord Byron" properly refers to many men? If it's the latter, that's not decisive for where the redirect should lead; if you think the former, then I don't know what to say. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, under WP:ASTONISH: "If a link takes readers to somewhere other than where they thought it would, it should at least take them somewhere that makes sense. ... For example,... The page on 'Chornobyl' redirects to 'Chernobyl,' an alternative spelling for that town. However, the user sees that a link to the desired page, Chernobyl disaster, is placed prominently near the top of the Chernobyl page, and happily clicks on that."

Very well, by parallel, if the "Lord Byron" takes them to Baron Byron, that makes sense; the user sees that a link to George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron is placed prominently near the top, and happily clicks on that. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 06:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or if someone's looking for one of the others, or the history of the title itself, they follow one of the hatnotes at the top of the poet's article. This is perfectly normal practice on Wikipedia - we save the majority of readers a click, at the expense of making a minority make two clicks instead of one. (And at the same time make it less likely that editors will make wrong links.) There are tens of thousands of examples of this principle being followed all over Wikipedia; I don't know why you should be making such a fuss about this one.--Kotniski (talk) 08:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't consider it "making a fuss" to cite naming conventions (e.g. WP:NCBRITPEER #3) and examples like "Lord Normanby" and suggest that the honorific "Lord Byron" should likewise redirect to the title to which it pertains, "Baron Byron", allowing that to disambiguate the holders. The very link Akhilleus offered, WP:ASTONISH, shows a reader following a path Chornobyl → Chernobyl → Chernobyl disaster, no more direct than the one I'm suggesting, so what indeed is the fuss? Why have other proponents mis-stated conventions, mis-stated statistics, mis-stated other claims, and even mis-stated the basic issues under discussion here ("the arguments for deletion are clearly Anglocentric in nature" — who argued for deletion?) — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 10:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's very simple - the poet is the primary topic for the phrase "Lord Byron", so that phrase should either be the name of the article or redirect there. Nothing in NCBRITPEER or elsewhere contradicts this standard bit of common sense.--Kotniski (talk) 11:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, as quoted above: "3. An honorific such as Lord Normanby may refer to any of the holders of the associated title, so can redirect to a page about the title itself." — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 11:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Can" is not "must". (And in Wikipedia guidelines, even "must" is not "must.)--Kotniski (talk) 12:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

? Why has the {{rfd}} notice been removed from Lord Byron? That was supposed to give users of that redirect fair notice of this discussion so they could participate and voice their own concerns, opinions, etc. As a result of the removal, could due notice have been denied, and some portion of this discussion be deemed to have been held sub rosa? What exactly is the policy impact on this RfD? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 07:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll admit that the proposal is failing. No point in continuing to obstruct readers with the notice (which of course prevents the redirect from working). Can we in fact agree to close this discussion already and move on to doing more productive things?--Kotniski (talk) 08:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
«obstruct readers with the notice» — More like "give notice to other redirect-users about this discussion so that they too might participate", rather than limit participation to those already engaged?

I'm entirely in favor of removing the rfd notice once the rfd discussion is closed; what concerns me is why the gun was jumped, and the notice removed while readers might otherwise still have seen it and come here to comment. It seems like locking the doors during a town hall meeting. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 10:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I ended up at the redirect page with Lord Byron and removed the discussion tag it because a wikipedia reader should not end up at a redirect page with a tag on it. Taelus has since fixed it so that it stays tagged and works as a redirect. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 11:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So do you agree to close this discussion now? I think everyone must have had about enough of it, and it's clear what the result is going to be.--Kotniski (talk) 11:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't a matter of counting !votes but of weighing arguments. And neither (a) the missing {{rfd}} notice that should have let other readers know this discussion was taking place nor (b) the sundry mis-stated conventions, mis-stated statistics, mis-stated other claims, etc., seem prideworthy... no matter how this topic is actually closed. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 11:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would humbly submit that the mis-statements have come mainly from the side seeking this change. The primary topic argument here seems to be perfectly clearly stated and to carry the full weight that people have attached to it. --Kotniski (talk) 12:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To what mis-statements do you refer? Omitted IFs, "obstruct readers with the [rfd] notice", (alleged) "arguments for deletion", "One does not refer to Astronaut Armstrong or Quarterback Favre"? Those were "Keeps".

The idea that "Lord Byron" is an honorific for Baron Byron, and refers to George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron (just as it refers to the other 12 Barons Byron) because he was a Baron Byron, seems also to be perfectly clearly stated.

Put in other words, had he not inherited that title from his grand-uncle, he would never have been called "Lord Byron", nor be so called today, even had his literary career and biography somehow remained otherwise the same. The primary link of that honorific is to the peerage, not to the individual. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 23:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seems not to know what "primary" means in this context. It means (in Wikipedia lingo) most likely to be sought by readers under that title, and it's on that basis that hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles are named. --Kotniski (talk) 05:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suspects that most of them were not about British peers, so I makes no objection to their not taking WP:NCROY / WP:NCBRITPEER into account. It's only when article topics/names involve British peerages that I thinks that should matter. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 06:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That just sounds silly. Why suspend the application of a highly successful rule for an arbitrary small subset of articles? Particularly those where the person was famous for something quite different than being a British peer. (And Duke of Wellington ought to redirect to the famous Duke of Wellington as well.)--Kotniski (talk) 10:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Regardless of the title itself, "Lord Byron" is the name that the general public uses for the famous poet. I honestly feel that George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron should be moved to Lord Byron and contain a disambig hatnote to get to the others. There is little doubt that searches for "Lord Byron" are overwhelmingly intended for the poet. Mrathel (talk) 15:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:NCROY naming conventions expect unambiguous article-names for individuals; this is failed if we call the poet's article by a name that doesn't distinguish him from any of the other 12 Lords Byron. They each use the format "[Name], [n]th Baron Byron", like other British peers (Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington; William Wedgwood Benn, 1st Viscount Stansgate), in accordance with the British peerage naming conventions. "George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron" clearly and unambiguously designates that individual, following the same conventions. Searches for "Lord Byron" that reach "Baron Byron" are there helpfully (and repeatedly) given links to "the English Romantic poet George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron"; meanwhile, searches for all the other actual Lords Byron are served by a link-list of those Barons. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 04:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this ignores the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC concept.--Kotniski (talk) 05:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (read as as a popularity contest) were the sole consideration, then "Duke of Wellington" would undoubtedly redirect to "Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington", or perhaps even be his article's title, parallel to the arguments for Lord Byron and the poet's article. However, neither is the case. WP:NCROY / WP:NCBRITPEER applies more directly. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 06:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Pending the outcome of this RFD, I have turned Lord Byron into an informal disambiguation page. This is to avoid the confusion pointed out above that having the RFD template causes, while not suppressing the RFD template from view. When the RFD closes please remove the disambiguating hatnote in addition to the RFD notice. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion was listed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage at 01:45, 29 November 2009. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion was listed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poetry#Redirect for Lord Byron under discussion at 15:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is complete silliness. The poet is the primary topic for "Lord Byron," to an extent unusual for peerage titles which have had multiple holders - perhaps to an unparalleled extent (maybe Lord Palmerston would compare - note that that also redirects to the most famous holder. Lord Salisbury, for that matter, has redirected to the third marquess for the last three years, with considerably less justification, but also, apparently, without controversy.) john k (talk) 05:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And does "Duke of Wellington" redirect to "Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington"? Or is it still about the peerage itself? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 06:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but dukes are different. We can have Lord Byron, Lord Palmerston, and Lord Salisbury redirect to the poet and the prime ministers, respectively, while Baron Byron, Viscount Palmerston, and Marquess of Salisbury are about the title. But since you don't use "Lord X" for a duke (although Lord Wellington does redirect to the first duke, because of his being known as that between 1809 and 1814), you can't have Duke of Wellington redirect to the first duke without moving the article about the title somewhere else. That creates a balancing consideration that doesn't exist for Lord Byron or Lord Palmerston. john k (talk) 06:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So here's the problem: all the Barons Byron are properly termed "Lord Byron" during their incumbency in title, and we have as examples the frequent in-article references of William Byron, 5th Baron Byron, the inter-article link from Richard Molyneux, 2nd Viscount Molyneux (now piped to the 1st Baron), the book With Lord Byron at the Sandwich Islands in 1825 referring to the 7th Baron, and a living 13th Baron with a living heir apparent; the title is not in abeyance, so the set is not closed. "Lord Byron" properly refers to the title, and thereby to all its holders, the poet among them. We needn't and shouldn't single out any one of them, at least any of the dead ones, and suggest he is the "Lord Byron" in exclusion of the rest (particularly the living one) — when we have the option preferred by WP:NCBRITPEER #3, "An honorific such as Lord Normanby may refer to any of the holders of the associated title, so can redirect to a page about the title itself." ... Then let that page's list disambiguate.

(Adding to cmt) When a title's in abeyance or a family's extinct, we might well assume the history's stable, nothing new is likely to happen. But with a living family and a current title... what if the current Baron (a barrister) is appointed to a prominent judgeship, say to a seat on the UK's new Supreme Court, or something for Europe, or the Hague? A flood of queries rush in about this "Lord Byron", and suddenly people ask why his article isn't titled that, or why the redirect doesn't go there instead. Whereas, if "Lord Byron" has redirected to "Baron Byron" all along, the new querents are handled the same way as searchers for the poet. No change needed. We won't need to "fix" anything, because it won't be "broken" in the first place. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 06:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The same could happen to any name. Another Barack Obama might become very famous, say. But we don't base our naming choices on such unlikely contingencies.--Kotniski (talk) 10:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Unlikely"? The same shift in fame has happened before! William Byron, 5th Baron Byron was the "famous" (or rather "infamous") Lord Byron under whose shadow the poet lived. Had Wikipedia and this discussion been around in the early 1800s, it'd be the 5th Baron's article that people would be pushing to either name or target "Lord Byron". And it'd have been just as "silly" for someone to say then, "Ah, but what if this young new child-Baron grows up to be even more notable? Won't we be sorry we didn't leave the honorific pointing to the title, instead of closing off our option to cover all the Barons under one heading?" — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 12:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think one fame shift per 200 years is something Wikipedia can cope with. In any case, there's no reason to expect lightning to strike twice - the same possibility exists with any article name, and Wikipedia's response is not to abandon the primary topic rule on the basis of such hypothetical future fame shifts.--Kotniski (talk) 13:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What the actual point of SF's arguments are eludes me. A peerage title is no different from any other name - everyone who has the same name is "equally entitled" to it just as much as everyone with the same peerage title. I direct your attention to John Adams (disambiguation). There were several prominent John Adams who lived before the second president of the United States, including a cartographer, a poet, a provost of King's College, Cambridge, and a Catholic Martyr. Presumably, before John Adams of Massachusetts became famous, people thought of one of those guys when the name "John Adams" was said. Similarly, there have been various famous John Adamses since, including, just off the top of my head, the discoverer of Neptune and the composer of Nixon in China Maybe, at some point in the future, the composer will be recognized as a great on the level of Mozart and Beethoven, and usage of "John Adams" will primarily refer to him, rather than to the president. Who knows? It's about as likely as the 15th Baron Byron somehow becoming more famous than the poet, I think (the composer is probably already more famous than any Lord Byron who has come since the poet, and the president is no more famous than the poet, David McCullough and HBO miniseries notwithstanding). Does this mean we should turn John Adams into a disambiguation page? Why does this not apply to every person on wikipedia who shares his name with somebody else with a wikipedia article? You've failed to give any explanation why we should do this with "Lord Byron" but not change our whole naming/primary topic policy, which you have to do to convince anybody. I'll note here that I approve of the article's current location, and don't think it should be moved to Lord Byron, on the grounds of uniformity - there is no article about any peer anywhere that is located at Lord X, no other encyclopedia titles articles in that way, and to start doing so for one peer would open a horrible can of worms. But when Lord X clearly has a primary topic, I see no reason not to redirect it, so long as we can have the Baron X or Earl of X article be about the title. john k (talk) 14:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read the other bios in the series, e.g. William Byron, 5th Baron Byron? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 12:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Commonly" ≠ "universally". Sizzle, no one is denying that the title "Lord Byron" can be used, and has been used, to refer to other holders of the title. What we are saying is that the vast majority of Wikipedia users who type in "Lord Byron" will be looking for the poet. The article traffic statistics bear this out. Since you have declined to address this point when it was raised before, here's some data in a handy table format, with information on every Wikipedia article that might conceivably be sought by someone typing in "Lord Byron":
Article Link to stats Hits in June 2009
John Byron, 1st Baron Byron [1] 300
Richard Byron, 2nd Baron Byron [2] 6
William Byron, 3rd Baron Byron [3] 1
William Byron, 4th Baron Byron [4] 30
William Byron, 5th Baron Byron [5] 583
George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron [6] 31,950
George Byron, 7th Baron Byron [7] 375
George Byron, 8th Baron Byron [8] 0 (article created 11/09)
George Byron, 9th Baron Byron [9] 3
Frederick Byron, 10th Baron Byron [10] 2
Rupert Byron, 11th Baron Byron [11] 112
Richard Byron, 12th Baron Byron [12] 4
Robert Byron, 13th Baron Byron [13] 248
Baron Byron [14] 843
Lord Byron (Thomson) [15] 138
Lord Byron of Broadway [16] 169
The Bad Lord Byron [17] 55
Lord Byron School (Gyumri) [18] 91
Lord Byron (chronology) [19] 458
I chose June 2009 at random; statistics for other months are roughly comparable (with the exception of November 2009, when this debate has driven more traffic to the articles of the other Lords Byron). So, to summarize: all other possible targets of "Lord Byron" combined had 3,418 hits in a random month; about one-tenth the number of hits of George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron. If we (generously) assume that incoming searches for "Lord Byron" arrive in roughly the same proportion as the hits received by the respective articles, then the redirect took approximately 90% of the incoming traffic to the desired article. The remaining 10% would have had to click through to the hatnote to reach their intended destination. If Baron Byron were the target, only 2.4% of readers would find themselves at the article they wanted; 90% would have to click through to George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron, and the rest to whatever other article they were looking for.
This is what is meant by "commonly refers". —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Union Avoidance Consultants - The Burke Group[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like advertising, and an implausible search. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember why I put that up. I mean, TBG specialises in getting unions out/preventing unions getting into a workplace. I don't really mind if you delete it. Wikidea 16:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Advertisement redirects, eh? — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as spam. Josh Parris 22:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Wikistalker[edit]

The result of the discussion was Redirect to Cyberstalking and add hatnote to Cyberstalking pointing to Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding. Non-admin closure with 100% consensus. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should be deleted as it is a cross-namespace redirect out of article space to the Wikipedia namespace.  Merlion  444  04:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The following is copied from this edit of User talk:Davidwr:


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

Mordova[edit]

The result of the discussion was Disambiguate the two possible misspellings. Tikiwont (talk) 20:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mordova is a misnomer for Moldova (Moldavia) and/or Mordovia. Neither Mordovia nor Moldova have such spelling variant. Some people, especially in Russia and CIS, mix up Moldova and Mordovia, some of them misspell it as Mordova. — Chesnok (talk • contribs) 20:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Interesting point. Is there a precedent for handling "typo disambiguations"? For what it's worth, since 2006 this has been a redirect to Mordovia. Not that this makes automatically Mordovia the preferred target. Perhaps restoring it to Mordovia but putting a hatnote at the top of Mordovia saying "Mordova redirect here, for the country of a similar spelling, see Moldova." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible solution: Change it to point to Moldova (disambiguation), which starts off "Moldova or Moldavia may refer to:" and put a hat-note at the top of the dab page saying "Mordova redirects here. You may be looking for Mordovia" or something similar. Pointing it to the DAB page covers a lot more articles, even if it changes 3 years of history. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabify - as this seems to be likely misspellings for both places, a dab page would seem like a good idea. 76.66.194.154 (talk) 07:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia have a rule that incorrectly spelled redirects must be speedily deleted. Now I will submit it to speedy deletion once again. — Chesnok (talk • contribs) 10:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such rule - see WP:CSD#Redirects, in particular "redirects from common misspellings or misnomers are generally useful." Speedy declined. JohnCD (talk) 14:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the speedy criteria specifies recently created redirects. This does not qualify. The speedy was declined and I endorse the declining - better to discuss than speedy in a case like this even if it did qualify. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where did you get the idea that misspelt redirects must be deleted?? Have you not noticed the contents of WP:RFD? There are many kept misspellings from this XfD. 76.66.202.219 (talk) 05:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, the speedy deletion rule actually only applies to mispellings that are both recent and implasuable. Simply being a misspelling has never been a speedy deltion criteria. For example having Herison Fhourd redirect to Harrison Ford would probabally qualify.
I can't count the redirects I've created to catch common misspellings (or mispunctuations, miscapitalisations, etc.) and pass readers along to the right articles. Our job here isn't to test readers' spelling skills and block them from reading articles if they fail. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 23:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabify: "You may be looking for: Moldova (Moldavia) and/or Mordovia." Just that simple. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 23:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabify - going back through the stats I see that every month there is a decent number of hits showing that this is a useful redirect. Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabify, if Mordova is ambiguous, then a disambiguation page is needed. Josh Parris 23:04, 2 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_November_27&oldid=1142587969"