Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 October 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 31[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 31, 2009

List of vocabulary replacements from latin in modern languages[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 20:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsensical redirect that resulted from a badly named article being renamed and then redirected. I can't think of anywhere sensible to redirect it, so should probably be deleted. --Zundark (talk) 14:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Pyhrric_victory[edit]

The result of the discussion was Keep. Tikiwont (talk) 20:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This obviously originated as a cure for a limited misspeling. The three linking articles (other than users' talk pages) have been already corrected. We shall not be promoting misspeling. Rather the editors shall be kept immediately notified that their spelling is wrong by showing the hyperlink as broken when 'Pyhrric' or similar is used. Oneliner (talk) 14:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Yes, "Pyhrric victory" is a misspelling of "Pyrrhic victory". However, it's a very common misspelling. A Google Books search indicates that it even shows up in books published by university presses. The purpose of having this misspelling as a redirect is so that people who search for the misspelled version will be taken to the page about the concept as correctly spelled, rather than finding nothing. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see a reason provided for deletion being presented. 76.66.203.102 (talk) 06:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I hoped the rationale was evident. Eventhough the redir template now includes a warning over misspelling, this will not likely be seen by an editor using or user following the incorrect spelling, since the redirection is immediate and virtually transparent. Truly Google reveals vast amount of the 'Pyhrric' misspelling, but that shouldn't be the reason for promoting the same through Wiki. The moment an editor uses the wrong spelling and adds a hyperlink, she/he will see the page as non-existent thus getting a chance to briskly fix her/his typo. It's a question of weighting the searching user having their life easier against the editors getting an opportunity to fix their error before their page is commited.--Oneliner (talk) 19:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Reasons for not deleting says "However, avoid deleting such redirects if:" 2. "They would aid accidental linking and make the creation of duplicate articles less likely [...] by redirecting a frequent misspelling to a correct spelling". If deleted, someone searching for "Pyhrric victory" would get only search results with the misspelled version, not the article, and might not guess the correct spelling. I've spelled things wrong before, and I take note when I see I've been redirected for that reason. Also, the creation of a duplicate article -- an editor seeing a redlink at the typo and adding a short definition, is another reason to keep this and all such common misspellings. MeekSaffron (talk) 04:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per WP:RFD#KEEP and per the large number of hits it receives. Pmlineditor ∞ 15:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

List of women's football clubs in Japan[edit]

The result of the discussion was Restore list. While there is consensus here to not have this redirect, there is actually a list underneath which the nominator may have been alluding to. If I got that wrong let me know.Tikiwont (talk) 20:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete. From 2010, L. League will have a "challenge league" as a second division, and need to an original club-list-article. --Ohtani tanya (talk) 08:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

RIC PHILIPS[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 21:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Redirect to a disambiguation page with non-standard capitalization. Nothing to redirect it to. Tassedethe (talk) 06:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Incorrect redirect that cannot be fixed. --Zundark (talk) 09:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. bd2412 T 14:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Going Rouge[edit]

The result of the discussion was Retarget to Going Rouge: Sarah Palin An American Nightmare as better navigational aid for the current pair of articles. Tikiwont (talk) 21:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Going Rogue is a soon-to-be published book written by Sarah Palin and Lynn Vincent. (The book has managed to be a US "bestseller" despite not actually existing yet; such is the topsy turvy world of publishing.) Going Rouge is a soon-to-be published book about Palin by Katrina vanden Heuvel, Naomi Klein, Katha Pollitt, and a number of others. (It's of some note even to those uninterested in Palin thanks to its [brand new] publisher's riposte to the topsyturviness of conventional book discounting, distribution, and returns.)

en:WP has articles on both books: Going Rogue: An American Life and Going Rouge: Sarah Palin An American Nightmare. The titles puzzle me, as I hadn't thought it either conventional or helpful to title an article on a book according to its title and subtitle. Actually the former article started as simply Going Rogue and was moved in this 29 September edit; the latter article started (on 22 October) with its current laborious title.

"Going Rouge" started on 30 September as a redirect to the article on Going Rogue. This was of course before there was an article on Going Rouge itself. At that point, I'd say it was a rather superfluous but conceivably helpful redirect. With an article on Going Rouge, Redthoreau altered it on 22 October to point to the article on Going Rouge

In this edit of 28 October, Dragoneer changed Going Rouge so that it pointed back to the article on the differently titled book by Palin and Vincent. This strikes me as unfortunate: if the articles are going to be titled as they now are, then I believe that "Going Rogue" should redirect to the one and "Going Rouge" should redirect to the other. If people believe that "Rouge" really is a likely misspelling (or misremembering") of "Rogue" then of course "Going Rouge: Sarah Palin An American Nightmare" can start with a hatnote saying something like "Going Rouge" redirects here. For the book by Sarah Palin, see Going Rogue: An American Life. -- Hoary (talk) 06:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wow, that's kind of hilarious. I created the redirect as an obscure in-joke, not thinking anybody would actually notice its existence. Now that there's a book with that exact title (something I certainly would not have expected, but there you go), it should most definitely be retargeted there. How very odd. --Closedmouth (talk) 06:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy retarget to Going Rouge: Sarah Palin An American Nightmare per nom. "Rouge" is definitely a likely misspelling of "rogue", at least here on Wikipedia, where users were denouncing "rouge admins" before Palin even became governor of Alaska. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep redirect "Going Rouge" is a derivative of "Going Rogue." The latter is a major political book garnering significant amounts of national media attention (both positive and negative) and sales, while the former has achieved notability only in its relation to the original work. All of the sources in its article mention it alongside Palin's book and not as a stand alone work. (This may change after the book is released 11/17.) The redirect should point at the originator of the phrase ("Going Rogue") and not the parody, especially as the original seems much more significant. Dragoneer (talk) 07:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comments: Going Rouge is written by a large number of people who already have their own articles at WP; its authorship alone is, I think, enough to make it remarkable, if not "notable" in en:WP terms. It has already received attention for its method of publication/distribution: here's PW on the matter. Although its cover and title clearly are parodic, its content cannot be a parody of the content of the previously announced book (if only because its authors cannot have read this). As for ownership (?) of parodied phrases, the phrase "The Spy Who Shagged Me" comes from "The Spy Who Loved Me", yet The Spy Who Shagged Me redirects not to The Spy Who Loved Me but to Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me. -- Hoary (talk) 08:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That article actually undermines the notability, since print on demand books are not considered very significant (I remember an AfD where a book's POD nature counted against it having an article). Your analogy to Bond and Austin Powers doesn't quite work here because both of those are movies from major movie studios, while this is a book from a national publisher vs. a publisher that has no established notability yet. A better comparison would be if an independent film studio released a movie parody of a major studio work with a deliberate misspelling - that misspelling would still go to the major movie. Dragoneer (talk) 10:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that "Going Rouge" should redirect to the "Going Rouge" book, and "Going Rogue" to the "Going Rogue" book, with both having a disambiguation line at the top mentioning the other one for clarification. I would also support use of the full titles for additional reader clarification. Moreover, I don't believe that notability can be accurately judged one way or the other for "Rouge", until after it has been released.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 12:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You've made a point that supports my argument, then: we know "Going Rogue" is a notable work, based on the amount of independent media coverage it's received. We do NOT know if "Going Rouge" is notable, because it has so far failed to accrue similar coverage. That's why I've proposed a merger until such time as "Going Rouge" can be considered on its own merits. And if the merger does not go through, I think the link to "Going Rouge" that currently exists in "Going Rogue" is sufficient weight for that book since we can not yet consider it equal in importance to "Going Rogue." Dragoneer (talk) 21:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm, let me try this new logic. The Big Sleep (1978 film) didn't accrue similar coverage to The Big Sleep (1946 film); therefore it wasn't notable. Indeed, The Big Sleep (the novel) didn't accrue as much (perhaps because Chandler stupidly forgot to get Bogart and Bacall to star in it); therefore it too wasn't notable. And The Big Sleep (band) and The Big Sleep (album) are wrecks, and not for any complex, highfalutin' reasons like lack of sourcing, but because neither subject accrued similar coverage to you-know-what. For that matter, The Long Goodbye (film) didn't accrue as much, so perhaps that had better be folded into something else too. Next week, we fold Gerald Ford into Richard Nixon and Pepsi into coke. -- Hoary (talk) 05:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The movie comparison still doesn't work since they were both released by major studios, while one of these books is through a major publisher and the other is published by a non-notable company. If you want to draw a parallel to movies, planned sequels or spin-offs may work better. Planned follow-ups and related works that have not been released, even when they're from major studios, are included as subsections to the main work (ex. Spider-Man 4 as a subsection w/ Spider-Man 3). That would seem to apply here, but in terms of a redirect instead of a merger. If the section of "related work" has a "go see the main article, "Going Rouge," for more info" that would be sufficient. I find it highly unlikely that someone who types in "Going Rouge" intends to find the book from the minor publisher and not the much more widely distributed and sold "Going Rogue." Dragoneer (talk) 22:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Except that (i) the publisher of Going Rouge does have verifiable notability, (ii) Going Rouge is no more or less planned or unreleased than Going Rogue is, and (iii) I for one did type in "Going Rouge" in the hope of seeing an article on this book cowritten by Matt Taibbi. -- Hoary (talk) 23:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy retarget to Going Rouge: Sarah Palin An American Nightmare per nom. Confusing not to have "Going Rouge" redirect to the "Going Rouge" book. Thanks, Starblueheather. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starblueheather (talk • contribs)
  • Retarget to Going Rouge: Sarah Palin An American Nightmare. It seems to me that Going Rouge should point to the book called Going Rouge. If both were titled Going Rogue with different subtitles, I'd say Palin's book should be the target (or more likely a dab page), but that's not the case. This is this book's title, and I imagine most people typing it into the search box (no one will type the full name) will expect to find Going Rouge. For those that make a typo, there's the hatnote. While the reverse argument can be made, I think the notability of this book has been substantiated in Rouge's references and Hoary's reasoning in Talk:Going Rogue: An American Life#Merger proposal on the bluelinks/notability of the authors in the essay book and that derivative works such as this can be notable. MeekSaffron (talk) 04:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And comment Like the option to revisit the merge proposal in the future, retargeting in the future is possible too if it turns out many people are making the typo. After all, redirects are designed to help people find what they're looking for. I'm not saying that's wrong. I'm just saying this seems more logical for now. MeekSaffron (talk) 04:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can agree with that. Have the books come out and then sort out the merger and redirect issues once we see how they do. Dragoneer (talk) 06:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to "Going Rouge: Sarah Palin An American Nightmare". As MeekSaffron points out, this could be re-visited in the future depending on merging the articles etc. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 00:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Imo, naija[edit]

The result of the discussion was Keep. Ruslik_Zero 14:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a very unlikely misspelling, even of "Imo, Nigeria". if we accept "naija" as a misspelling, it would most likely be of Niger, a completely different country. Nothing links here, and there's no sign that anything ever has - but it's not a new redirect, so it doesn't meet speedy criteria. Delete Grutness...wha? 01:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Currently, Naija redirects to Nigeria, and the edit summary given when that redirect was created says that Naija is Nigerian pidgin for Nigeria. --Zundark (talk) 18:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hm. That puts a bit of a different complection on it. You learn something new every day... Grutness...wha? 23:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Zundark. Seems to be a valid redirect. GlassCobra 14:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No need to create redirects for every place in this country using its pidgin name. As an encyclopedia, we should be encouraging proper spelling. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, as an encyclopedia, we should be enabling our readers to find the article they're looking for. GlassCobra 15:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, but do you really think that people would first search for Naija instead of Nigeria? Highly unlikely, otherwise we'll need redirects for every place with every conceivable alternate country name. Furthermore, this is pointless considering the other search tools we have. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 17:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is not Wikipedia solely for Europe, Australia, and the Americas: this is Wikipedia for the world. Many people in Nigeria use pidgin the same way some Britons use Cockney and some Americans use ebonics. Deleting this redirect will make the Wikipedia less user-friendly, the opposite of our collective intentions. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 01:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Tempted by the fruit of another[edit]

The result of the discussion was Retarget to Tempted (Squeeze song). Ruslik_Zero 14:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of a stretch. People don't usually search for whole strings of lyrics like this. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This wouldn't be the first time I've seen someone think this is what "Tempted" is called. JuJube (talk) 03:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Tempted (Squeeze song). It's a likely search term, because the song is commonly referred to as such (so commonly, in fact, that last.fm lists the phantom track "Tempted by the Fruit of Another" as 18th most popular Squeeze track). --Zundark (talk) 15:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Zundark. However, this should not be interpreted as an endorsement of the idea of creating redirects based on strings of lyrics in general. It is just meant to accept the existing redirect in this particular case. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Zundark. GlassCobra 14:38, 3 November 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_October_31&oldid=1142587960"