Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 March 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 27[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 27, 2010

Adnan Osmani[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 --Taelus (talk) 09:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the target article this name in only one in in list - no information about this person in particular. --Eingangskontrolle (talk) 20:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weakish keep -- actually, there is some information about him in the article, namely that in 2003 he won this science contest at the age of 16, he attended St. Finnian's College, etc. I'm sure this isn't a particularly useful redirect, but I also don't see any very good reason to delete it.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 05:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - at this time, Mr. Osmani is known only for this one event (WP:BLP1E) and thus ineligible for a standalone article about him. If it were likely for him to meet the WP:BIO notability bar, deletion would be the prudent action to encourage article writing. Here, maintaining the redirect would discourage the possibility, with the additional benefit of being easily overwritten should he become known for a second event. B.Wind (talk) 14:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Glaciers of Liberia[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. JohnCD (talk) 17:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very unlikely surely? The only African glaciers are on Mt Kilimanjaro, which is on the Kenya/Tanzania border. Liberia is a flat, coastal country on the other side of the continent. This only exists because the Outline of Liberia article (which itself probably warrants deletion) includes Glaciers of Liberia. One can only be glad that the author did not redirect Fjords of Liberia to Fjords with the observation that there are no fjords in Liberia either. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

I Have a Dream by James Furman - Oratorio dedicated to the memory of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr[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 deleted per WP:CSD#R3. Thryduulf (talk) 22:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a page I moved a couple of days ago on the grounds that the title was unwieldy, and I'm not sure the redirect I left behind is of any use to anyone, including, at this point, the page creator. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 17:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sordid[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 Sordid as it's now a disambiguation page; soft-redirect the other two to Wiktionary as there isn't an agreed-upon local target. ~ mazca talk 20:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Came across this accidentally... Why does this redirect to what is basically its opposite? I'm putting this up for discussion to fish for ideas as to what it should redirect to. Thanks. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 11:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can't think of an obvious target for this, nor has a search for "sordid" turned up anything useful - while there are lots of partial title matches none of these are really suitable for a disambiguation page per WP:DABNOT. A soft redirect to Wiktionary (using {{wi}}) is one possibility, but I'm willing to be persuaded to change my recommendation if anyone comes up with a better solution. Note that sordidness and sordidly also redirect to cleanliness, so I've added these to this nomination. Thryduulf (talk) 12:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Dirt - Internal solutions are preferable to external ones; I would recommend against soft redirecting to Wiktionary. "Sordid" and "Dirty" are synonyms, so Dirt appears to be the most appropriate target. Neelix (talk) 16:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree with above - sordid =/= dirty, except in one specialised meaning of dirty to do with sex, which is not mentioned anywhere in Dirt. Shame would come closer than Dirt, but even that's not very close. Support redirect to Wiktionary --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Wiktionary. I agree that neither Shame nor Dirt comes particularly close to describing what is meant by most uses of "sordid," and can't think of anything else we have that's better. "Rude" in British usage, maybe, but it's not covered at Rudeness.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 20:13, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sordid is not only used in the sense of morally filthy; it can also mean physically filthy. According to Dictionary.com, definition #1 is "morally base", definition #2 is "meanly selfish", definition #3 is "dirty", and definition #4 is "squalid". Both Dirt and Selfishness are appropriate targets for these redirects; why not turn Sordidness into a disambiguation page listing both? Even if people disagree with redirecting to Dirt, Selfishness is a completely valid target. When users search on Wikipedia they expect to find an encyclopedia article, not a dictionary article; since there are valid encyclopedia article targets, we should not redirect to Wiktionary. Neelix (talk) 19:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The only thing that a dab page could say is "Here are some dictionary definitions of "sordid". We have some encyclopaedia articles about some of the things "sordid" can mean." Dictionary definitions are far better handled at Wiktionary, and we don't do dab pages like this anyway. The purpose of the {{wi}} template is that it says "We don't have an encyclopaedia article about this topic. If you want a dictionary definition, click here to be taken to one on our sister site Wiktionary.". Redirecting to "selfishness" is just as bad as redirecting to "dirt". Thryduulf (talk) 22:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's not true. A disambiguation page is not a list of dictionary definitions; it is a list of encyclopedia articles. In some contexts, "sordidness" is a synonym of "selfishness." The Selfishness article could be called "Sordidness", except for the fact that "Selfishness" is the more common term for the concept. In other contexts, "sordidness" is a synonym for "dirtiness". We don't redirect Loathing to Wiktionary; we redirect it to Hatred because they are synonyms and we have an article about the concept to which both terms refer. Neelix (talk) 23:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • My point about dic defs on the dab page was badly worded. I meant that a disambiguation page at Sordid (or Sordidness etc) wouldn't be listing encyclopaedia articles related to "sordidness" but listing dictionary definitions of "sordidness" and linking to articles that related to some of the possible definitions of "sordidness". That loathing redirects to hatred is not relevant because it has only the one sense "Sense of revulsion, distaste, detestation, extreme hatred or dislike." and the article at hatred covers this sense in its entirety. In contrast the sense of "dirtiness" that means "sordidness" is only a small part of the definition of "dirtiness" (you can be dirty (in many senses) without being sordid), likewise "sordidness" is only a small part of the definition of "selfishness" (i.e. you can be selfish without being sordid). All this means that the best a disambiguation page could do would be to look very much like wikt:sordid#Adjective - i.e. a list of dictionary definitions. The {{wi}} template would soft-redirect users to wikt:sordid explaining that what they'll be getting is dictionary definitions not encyclopaedia articles. Thryduulf (talk) 23:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • A Wiktionary entry cannot be the primary target for any term for which there are possible Wikipedia article targets. If the term has a meaning for which we have an article on Wikipedia, then that target takes precedence over any Wiktionary entry. Including a link to Wiktionary on that target Wikipedia article is acceptable, but soft redirecting to Wiktionary rather than redirecting to a valid Wiktionary article is not. There should either be a disambiguation page listing Selfishness and Dirt and a link to Wiktionary, or else these redirects should be retargeted to Selfishness. Either of these solutions is preferable to soft redirecting to Wiktionary. Neelix (talk) 13:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the term had wikipedia target articles, I'd support you. However, Shame Selfishness and Dirt dont contain any reference to sordid or sordidness. I note we don't have an article on Squalid either (the bluelink is due to it being the name of a family of sharks.Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The term has Wikipedia target articles. The Selfishness article's lede could validly read "Selfishness (also known as sordidness) denotes the precedence given in thought or deed to the self." The entire article discusses sordidness because selfishness and sordidness are synonyms. Neelix (talk) 18:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With the greatest respect, no they are not in normal usage of either UK or US English. Are you perhaps referencing English from another part of the Commonwealth? Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How are you defining normal usage? A dictionary of English synonymes and synonymous or parallel expressions: designed as a practical guide to aptness and variety of phraseology lists "sordid" as a synonym of "selfish". Neelix (talk) 17:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sweetie, that book is from 1885 - that's 125 years ago. (Are you by any chance a time traveller?) Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC) Srsly, see the sets of definitions below. I think it may have inclined more to either selfish or just plain grubby in 1885, but the meaning has moved since then, as languages do. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I have stated below, the antagonist in Simon the Sorcerer is also named "Sordid". As I have stated above, a Wiktionary entry cannot be the primary target for any term for which there are possible Wikipedia article targets. Simon the Sorcerer is a valid target for Sordid. Even if all the other possible targets are rejected, this one is valid and takes precedence over any Wiktionary entry. Neelix (talk) 01:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Let's look at the definitions of "sordid" as provided by dictionary.com: 1) morally ignoble or base, vile; 2) meanly selfish, self-seeking, or mercenary; 3) dirty or filthy; 4) squalid; wretchedly poor and run-down. With the multiple meanings, I do not see a plausible target for a redirect. On the other hand I am generally opposed to creating a soft redirect to Wiktionary every time we see a word that doesn't "deserve" having a Wikipedia article (I'd think Wikipedia would better help the reader look for dictionary entries to have either a Wiktionary link to the left of the text, either to take the reader to Wiktionary to look over there or to provide a dictionary search in a popup, and this would obviate the use of soft redirects to Wiktionary altogether). 147.70.242.54 (talk) 02:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merriam Webster is very similar (except for the last one)
1 : marked by baseness or grossness : vile <sordid motives>
2 a : dirty, filthy b : wretched, squalid
3 : meanly avaricious : covetous
4 : of a dull or muddy color
synonyms see mean

Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is from Longman's Dictionary of Contemporary English
1 involving immoral or dishonest behaviour - sordid business/affair/story etc

  • The whole sordid affair came out in the press.
  • She discovered the truth about his sordid past.
  • I want to hear all the sordid details!

2very dirty and unpleasant [= squalid]:

  • a sordid little room

Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Synonyms from Collins Thesaurus 1. base, degraded, shameful, low, vicious, shabby, vile, degenerate, despicable, disreputable, debauched He put his head in his hands as his sordid life was exposed. 2. dirty, seedy, sleazy, squalid, mean, foul, filthy, unclean, wretched, seamy, slovenly, skanky (slang), slummy, scungy (Austral. & N.Z.) the attic windows of their sordid little rooms Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Sordid is also the name of the antagonist in Simon the Sorcerer. This is yet another valid disambiguation page entry. Neelix (talk) 18:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And you know this how? From playing the game presumably, as the word "sordid" (whether as a character or anything else) does not appear in Simon the Sorcerer or Simon the Sorcerer series. Redirects should not redirect to articles where the redirect does not appear - which is the entire substance of the request to delete or redirect to Wiktionary. Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know this because it's on the article; you must have missed it when you checked. Look at the second paragraph of the Simon the Sorcerer article. It's been there long before it came up in this discussion, and I've never edited that article. Neelix (talk) 11:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I did miss it. Totally marginal redirect though, but you could make a dab page with a link to that and a softlink to Wiktionary. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds good to me. Neelix (talk) 15:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Go for it then. I don't think you're prohibited from editing the page while the discussion is ongoing (or pretty much petered out by the look of things). Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

National liberation[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. Ruslik_Zero 18:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an inappropriate redirect. The concept "national liberation" is not necessarily linked to any particular nation or movement, and the link to the "National Liberation Front" disambig page is misleading. RolandR (talk) 18:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I stumbled across this from Marxism, which speaks of the opposition of Left Communism to " all kinds of national liberation movements". This is wikilinked, which leads readers to this irrelevant disambig page. I am surprised that there is no article on the concept of national liberation; but, in its absence, it is not appropriate to link pages which mention the term to this disambig page. RolandR (talk) 18:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure this is any better. There is a difference between "national liberation", which is a concept even if not actually translated into a particular movement, and "liberation movement", which is not necessarly related to a national struggle. I also considered, and rejected, suggesting linking to Wars of national liberation. I think it would be better either to remove the page and redirect altogether, until a proper article is created. RolandR (talk) 08:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should we include National Liberation in this discussion as well? It also redirects to National Liberation Front. Rejectwater (talk) 16:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Definitely; exactly the same arguments apply. How do I add it to this discussion, without opening a separate RfD?RolandR (talk) 17:01, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've added it to the top of this section, I'll add the template to the page itself. Hopefully this will not create a new discussion. Rejectwater (talk) 18:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems like "National Liberation/National liberation" should have its own page, but at the same time it seems like it would be little more than a dictionary definition. What is currently posted at Liberation movement would be a good start for a potential "National Liberation/National liberation" article, with the additional necessity of revising Liberation movement to include all liberation movements, not just national liberation movements. Or possibly both articles could serve as similar meta-disambiguation articles for the topics they cover with Liberation movement serving as an umbrella for all. Rejectwater (talk) 18:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, in the absence of any real unambiguous target from this I think it would be better to redirect searchers to the search engine results page. I concur with the nomination that dumping them at the NLF's page may not be what they are looking for. ~ mazca talk 21:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 10:02, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; list at WP:RA - this is too general/important a topic to have a misleading redirect; similarly a disambiguation page is not appropriate as most uses of the phrase "national liberation" tend to be as parts of proper nouns that do not fit easily into a dab page. It is better to delete the redirect and request an article at the appropriate page. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 01:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Fat Toad[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 retarget to Fat Toadlet. JohnCD (talk) 17:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Though the player was once called this by his team's owner, that's been years ago, and to associate it with him now seems mean-spirited, though I don't know if BLP necessarily applies. The redirect has no inbound links and would be a likely search term only for those who already know its significance and can easily find Irabu's article anyway. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 03:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This isn't seeing significant use - less than 10 hits a month most months since August. Thryduulf (talk) 18:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to the similarly-named Fat Toadlet stub article. Should Fat Toad Farm get its Wikipedia article, dabification would not be a bad idea. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 02:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 09:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/apologies. I've just spotted that I commented earlier in this discussion and so should not have take the decision to relist it myself. If someone else thinks this should have been closed rather than relisted then I wont object to you doing just that. Sorry. Thryduulf (talk) 18:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Fat Toadlet per 147.70.242.54.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 18:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

GNE Project Files[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. Ruslik_Zero 18:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Useless soft redirect in the main namespace. The only incoming link is to User talk:The Cunctator, a user talk page. Graham87 07:43, 27 March 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_March_27&oldid=1148047701"