Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 January 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 26[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 26, 2010

The Sun[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was No consensus, both sides are well argued and valid, unlikely that relisting will lead to consensus as it seems to be a roughly equal split amongst the community. --Taelus (talk) 00:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone who looks up "The Sun" is more likely to be looking for a newspaper than an article about the star in our solar system. The least that can be said is that its ambiguous. I propose to point this either turn it into a disambiguation page with a list of newspapers or re-point it toward Sun (disambiguation). — Blue-Haired Lawyer 18:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to the disambiguation page. One of the several newspapers is as equally likely target as the star. Thryduulf (talk) 18:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Sun (disambiguation). Or, better yet, split the existing DAB into Sun (disambiguation) and a new The Sun (disambiguation) (with each having a see-also link to the other), and redirect to the version with "The" . Me Three (talk to me) 20:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "Sun" is always referenced with the indefinite article. One doesn't say "look up at Sun", they say "look up at the Sun". Due to Wikipedia's capitalization restrictions, this means people will end up at "The Sun" when they search "the Sun". The star at the center of our solar system is much more relevant to all readers than any region-specific magazine(s) could ever be. Note that this redirect originally pointed to what is now The Sun (newspaper). I'd support a redirect to Sun (disambiguation) long before supporting a redirect back to that one newspaper. — CIS (talk | stalk) 21:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Keep it as it is. Though if any change is made I'd prefer it point to the existing Sun (disambiguation) page too. beardybloke (talk) 23:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There are precedents for this kind of distinction: compare West Wing with The West Wing, Cube with The Cube, Republic with The Republic, Affair with The Affair, Corporation with The Corporation, Mail with The Mail, Post with The Post, Star with The Star. Pointing The Sun toward Sun goes against consistent naming practise on Wikipedia, common sense, and the spirit of WP:THE. That a word is commonly preceded with the definite article, shouldn't effect how we name things on Wikipedia. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 01:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The use of The Sun is allowed by my interpretation of the exception rule in WP:THE, in that my understanding of sun is that its a generic term to describe a star, often poetically "distant suns" is used to describe stars in far off parts of space (notwithstanding that Wikipedia uses sun to describe the one in our Solar system almost exclusively - but I dont propose changing that), whereas the sun is definitely the one in our solar system. Using that interpretation its perfectly valid within current naming practice and within the allowed usages of the definite article from WP:THE. Your final comment of common sense for your proposal is pure hyperbole, you might as well claim you have bluey-green, the gods of Valhalla and all of the Citroen Picasso owners club supporting you. Common sense is not a stranger to either side of the discussion. I can see both sides to this and to be honest I'm not that attached to keeping it one way or the other, I just personally think that the big gaseous ball of fire in the centre of our Solar system supporting the lives of billions of life forms on this planet has a bigger claim over the definite article than a newspaper read by a couple million people on an archipelago on the eastern edge of the North Atlantic Ocean. Its only my interpretation and I'm sure that theres another dozen different interpretations possible so at the end of the day I'll go with consensus, which I thought had been reached last July beardybloke (talk) 10:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      The point is that when referring to a star, "The sun" almost universally means Sun. However without any context, which is how it is entered in the search box, "The Sun" does not overwhelmingly refer to Sun. The following is a table of the first 50 results from a google.co.uk web search for "the sun", sorted by number of hits in descending order, then alphabetically:
Star 14
UK newspaper 8
Empire of the Sun (band) 2
Place in the Sun (UK TV programme) 2
Baltimore newspaper 1
California newspaper 1
Care in the Sun (Northern Ireland charity) 1
Essex pub 1
Film 1
Here Comes The Sun (Beatles song) 1
Lake District restraunt 1
Lancaster hotel 1
Lion in the Sun (clothing company) 1
Livng in the Sun (property company) 1
Massachussets newspaper 1
Malaysian newspaper 1
Nigerian newspaper 1
Sun Microsystems 1
Ottowa newspaper 1
Run to the Sun (VW festival) 1
Tenerife newspaper 1
Toronto newspaper 1
Unsigned band 1
US magazine 1
Vancouver newspaper 1
Washington (state) newspaper 1
This shows that there is no overwhelming case for "The sun" to point anywhere except the disambiguation page. Thryduulf (talk) 11:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you take into account that some of those other references to the sun (living in the sun, lion in the sun, empire of the sun, etc) are using the sun in the sense of the local star then we have at least half a dozen that could be lumped in with the first listing, which could potentially bring the total where its explicitly the star from just under a third to around 40-50% of the total. I appreciate the illustration though. Using the disambiguation page would be a reasonable compromise for me, just so long as it doesnt point directly to the tabloid or a list of newspapers which is probably the worst of all worlds. beardybloke (talk) 13:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But I do have bluey-green, the gods of Valhalla and all of the Citroen Picasso on my side -:) Can I take it that you've changed your vote? My proposal is that "The Sun" be pointed toward "Sun (disambiguation)". (And even if there was consensus for "The Sun (disambiguation)", the star would still be the first entry.)
I haven't tried this yet but what happens when you look up a random samples of pages which link to "The Sun"? I'm guessing they overwhelmingly refer to the British Newspaper, although I could be wrong. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 20:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say my vote is still to keep as it is, but if any change was made it would be to use the disambiguation page rather than point to the newspaper or a list of newspapers specifically. Long may bluey-green be with you :) beardybloke (talk) 23:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a redirect to Sun, as per previous discussion regarding this. I understand the argument regarding newspapers, given that my metropolitan paper (The Vancouver Sun) is typically referred to simply as The Sun. However, that doesn't change the fact that the English-language phrase "the Sun" is by-and-large internationally understood to be an reference to our local star, unless context suggests otherwise. (If you ask someone if they've seen the New York Times, they'll think of the paper. If you walk up to someone, even in a city with a "Sun" newspaper, and ask if they've seen the Sun today, I'd wager that they'd glance up at the sky first rather than looking for a newsstand.) Combine that with the disambiguation heading already in place at the top of Sun, and readers are more than adequately served. --Ckatzchatspy 20:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to either disambiguation page or UK newspaper. Blue-Haired Lawyer points out that this is supported by precedent. Further, I don't think people looking for the newspaper should have to go through TWO extra clicks to find what they need. —Кузьма討論 21:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The Sun is the thing in the sky. "A" sun is a star with a planetary system. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per CrazyInSane. That is, the indefinite article bit and "the Sun" referencing our local star is of much greater international relevance than in terms of referencing a regional publication. — Huntster (t @ c) 07:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. That we have other article titles distinguished by "The" does not mean that we must likewise distinguish this set of articles by "The", only that we could if it was helpful. In this case, it is not; as CrazyInSane and Ckatz pointed out, "The Sun" is both frequently used to refer to and, lacking context, almost universally understood to mean, Sol. Powers T 12:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate - I would see the case for a redirect titled "The sun" to redirect to "Sun" without disambiguation, since when the noun is not capitalised it is overwhelmingly meaning the bright light-source in the sky. However when taken as a capitalised proper noun, there are alternative meanings of comparable notability, which suggests disambiguation is the right course of action. Icalanise (talk) 22:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Er, so our home star and The Sun newspaper are of comparable notability? Surely I can't be reading that correctly...I'm astonished if that is the case. Regardless, we do not need "The sun" and "The Sun" pointing to two different articles, it would simply be confusing to all involved. Either both point to our star, or both point to a disambig page. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep current target. Our article naming conventions mean that Sun is not currently located at The Sun, but that is what it's called, and every other thing named "The Sun" is named after it. That is clearly the primary usage. Moreover, Sun is always going to have a hatnote pointing to Sun (disambiguation), so all the other possible meanings are perfectly accessible. The fact that article naming conventions discourage locating Sun at The Sun and tolerate locating something like The Sun (newspaper) there is no excuse for confounding our readers' expectations. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget, preferably to The Sun (newspaper), or, a distant second choice would be Sun (disambiguation). I think it's important to point out how it's actually been used on Wikipedia. After the move of The Sun to The Sun (newspaper), I took on the task of cleaning up the links. When I began, there were over 1100 links to The Sun. Of these, only 8 actually pertained to the Sun, 3 referred to The Sun (film), there were 2 for The Sun (band), 1 each for other publications (The Sun (New York) and Toronto Sun), 7 for other uses, and all of the rest referred to The Sun (newspaper). I performed this maintenance six months after the move, so presumably a great number of additional links intended for The Sun (newspaper) had already been fixed before I entered the picture. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 13:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is this an argument for retargeting the redirect? Of course most of The Sun links were intended for The Sun (newspaper) initially, because that's where the newspaper's Wiki article was originally located. — CIS (talk | stalk) 15:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it's probably the best argument so far. It's proof that when people wish to link to the gaseous object they write [[Sun]]. When they write [[The Sun]] they're thinking about something quite different. Had the argument that "The Sun" should link toward "Sun" been correct, some, if not most, of those links would have been intended to bring the reader to Sun. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 21:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Many of those links were added in the six months after the move. It is extremely likely that people will continue to add links to The Sun when they intend to link to The Sun (newspaper). Users following the current link (or typing "The Sun" in the search box) are redirected to Sun. If they click on Sun (disambiguation) at the top of that page, they may find themselves to be confused. From the original article's context, they may have figured out that it refers to a publication, but the disambiguation page lists 36 articles under "Periodicals". Of these, 12 are of the form "The Sun (something)". Right now, The Sun (newspaper) has 2050 articles linking to it. The most any of the others have is 88, for The Sun (Lowell). But users are obviously not going to check this to see that the one almost certainly intended is The Sun (newspaper). In contrast, users interested in the Sun can very easily and unambiguously find the page they're looking for.
Arguments that "Sun" is normally preceded by "the" are completely unconvincing. People don't say "I'm going to beach." They say "I'm going to the beach." Are we supposed to redirect The Beach to Beach? MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Beach" isn't a proper noun that is capitalized, "Sun" is (though not in all contexts). — CIS (talk | stalk) 05:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Sun (disambiguation), or perhaps make a disambiguation page for "The Sun", for ease of maintenance. I requested that links pointing to "The Sun" be fixed, and I was shocked that no-one had thought of lihnk fixing when they commented on the move request six months ago. If "The Sun" redirected to "The Sun (newspaper)", there'd be no point in the disambiguator, and the newspaper would have to be moved back to the title The Sun. Since the UK newspaper is clearly the most well-known per the link stats above, it should be mentioned prominently in any disambiguation page. Graham87 06:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You really think the UK newspaper is "clearly the most well known", and not the star responsible for life on earth? — Gavia immer (talk) 15:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Graham87 was quite obviously stating that it's the most well-known newspaper. Note that he says "the most well-known per the link stats above", and the link stats immediately above his comment are about newspapers. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ckatz. Ruslik_Zero 16:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. My findings above clearly show that editors are not using [[The Sun]] to link to the Sun: only 8 out of over 1100 links. Of those eight, five existed before the page move. Of the remaining three, one was added by a vandal and I have since removed it. The other two were actually links to "the Sun", but not a single valid link to [[The Sun]] intended for [[Sun]] has been added in the six months since it began redirecting to "Sun". So this discussion is really about users typing in the search box. The reality of that situation is that users do not type "The Sun"; they invariably type "the sun", and will be redirected to Sun. The redirect of "The sun" to "Sun" is perfectly reasonable and is not disputed. Leaving the current redirect of The Sun in place will only lead to more incorrect links. I had to fix another and yet another link which sprung up just today and were intended for The Sun (newspaper). MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed another six links. New links to [[The Sun]] appear every day, all of them intended for The Sun (newspaper). I've fixed eight in just three days. Editors are going to continue to add links to The Sun which pertain to the newspaper. Do we really want to keep a useless redirect that points where some people feel it theoretically should point? Shouldn't it instead serve the useful purpose of directing users to the article which is really intended in actual practice? MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is. Gavia Immer sums it up perfectly. Reyk YO! 22:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

List of Sri Lankan Tamils[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 Wrong venue, suggested to be taken to Requested Moves instead, and article talk page to gain better consensus. --Taelus (talk) 00:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To make way for article move Blackknight12 (talk) 11:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have no isues with the redirect Taprobanus (talk) 12:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I don't understand - are you planning on moving List of Tamils of Sri Lanka to List of Sri Lankan Tamils? If so, I would suggest discussion on the Talk:List of Tamils of Sri Lanka first. Don't forget, if you want 'List of Sri Lankan Tamils' deleted to make way for the move, all you have to do is ask on WP:RM. JulieSpaulding (talk) 14:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agreed with Julie, I'm not understanding. Are you wanting to delete "List of Sri Lanka Tamils" to make way for *another* article, or do you want to move "List of Tamils of Sri Lanka" back to "List of Sri Lanka Tamils"? If the former, that seems fine; if the latter, I'd disagree based on standard naming practices. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm guessing what you're actually looking for is WP:Requested moves. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 18:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Floating Market[edit]

The result of the discussion was speedy close - Nomination withdrawn and page retargeted to Floating market. Non-admin closure. Paul_012 (talk) 16:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As argued at Talk:Markets in Bangkok, only one "floating market" is actually in Bangkok; the vast majority are located in other provinces and other countries, Vietnam being one of them. The redirect, as it exists, obstructs the reader from locating actual articles involving such markets themselves. Paul_012 (talk) 17:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Floating market, which has been created according to JulieSpaulding's suggestion. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Suggestion Why don't you make a List of floating markets put the wikilinks and locations of all of the floating markets on wikipedia in there and redirect to it. Seems a sensible thing to do. Polargeo (talk) 16:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree, but I'm short of resources on what should be included, as many seem to lack articles on Wikipedia. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:57, 27 January 2010 (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 10:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I have tagged the redirect with {{R with possibilities}} as it could become an article that is more generic. However, a search for sources etc seems to indicate that the most notable floating market is the one in Bangkok, and thus the redirect is useful currently, more useful than if we had no redirect at all. No prejudice against coverting to a disambiguation page. --Taelus (talk) 12:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, the most notable floating market is likely Damnoen Saduak, which is outside Bangkok, and mainly covered in the Ratchaburi Province article. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Taelus, with a short comment of my own. A quick Google search does bring up quite a few Bangkok floating markets, but the number of Indonesian floating markets and Vietnamese floating markets that I found give weight to the argument that a separate Floating Market article (of course, per editing guidelines, it really should be Floating market) should be created. JulieSpaulding (talk) 14:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

User:Jeffro77/Archive2009c[edit]

The result of the discussion was Speedy delete under CSD U1. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page was accidentally created in wrong namespace Jeffro77 (talk) 05:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Pretty sure you can just tag this {{db-g7}} for speedy deletion, since you created it and it's in your own userspace.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 06:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

"nancy raven smith"[edit]

The result of the discussion was Speedy deleted under WP:CSD#R3 ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect that matches the name of the target page except for being enclosed in quotes. Should be deleted per previous RfD consensus. –Grondemar 02:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete per nom. Thryduulf (talk) 11:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:REDIRECT states that redirects should be used in the case of likely misspellings and alternative capitalizations. This redirect is neither a likely misspelling or an alternative capitalization. Not many people are going to search for "nancy raven smith". They might search for nancy raven smith, but not with the quotes. JulieSpaulding (talk) 14:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, recent consensus on such redirects is to delete them, as "name" is not a plausible search term, and would be recommended by the search tool anyway. --Taelus (talk) 17:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Elizabeth Rhodes, PhD[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Delete --Taelus (talk) 17:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. This redirect was created through a page move, but I'm not sure the original title should remain, given that only the page creator could possibly seek it.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 02:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No pages in the mainspace link to the PhD redirect, and I doubt anybody is going to search for that. JulieSpaulding (talk) 14:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. I agree that this redirect was was created through a page move. I created the article, which will be added to. I would suggest taking off the page that is labeled Elizabeth Rhodes PhD and leave the page titled Elizabeth Rhodes. User: Mary Jordan

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

Constuctive fraud[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Keep all as retargetted, with the exception of Delete The shrub. --Taelus (talk) 17:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

deleted or reverted, per redirect sohmc (talk) 17:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note many of these are vandalous redirects (or redirects changed by Xqbot, because its original target was vandalized to redirect to George W. Bush) -- they simply require a revert. I'll attempt to do this now. Me Three (talk to me) 20:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, it looks like only the article Fraud was vandalized (changed to a redirect), and the bot changed all of these redirects, which previously targeted Fraud, to George W. Bush. Other than Criss Angel's Mindfreak (which had a target even before it redirected to Fraud), these are all the work of a well-intentioned bot. It may still be worthy of discussion whether they should all redirect to Fraud or not. Me Three (talk to me) 20:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete The shrub per G10. This was created as a redirect to George W. Bush for no apparent reason, and never had a previous redirect (sorry for the multiple entries on this RFD) Me Three (talk to me) 20:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per G10 --NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 01:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep most as retargeted to "fraud", where they seem reasonable. Not sure about "The shrub". If it is a real nickname, keeping it may be reasonable, but it doesn't seem to be used much. Ucucha 15:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget all except "The shrub" to Fraud or an appropriate subsection of that article. Delete "Shrub" - as the Shrub article does not contain a hatnote reference to George W. Bush, and the George W. Bush article does not contain the word "shrub" it would seem that it isn't regarded as an enyclopaedically notable enough nickname to be worthy of a redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 16:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Criss Angel's Mindfreak as retargeted; delete The shrub as confusing (as its use as a nickname of GWB was not reliably reported); revert the rest as an unintentional mistake by a confused bot. While there is no great loss if the first nominated redirect is deleted, it is nonetheless a foreseeable typographical error. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:05, 1 February 2010 (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/2010_January_26&oldid=1148048018"