Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 April 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 3[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 3, 2011

Pickup Truck (single)[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 Pick-Up Truck. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article (which I have now redirected) stated that this was a single, but there is no evidence of this and the page was created by a user who has added incorrect information to other articles. If the song was not a single, this redirect is misleading and should be deleted. Peter E. James (talk) 22:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is documenting (for attribution purposes) a page move, and is not conflicting with anything else. Redirects are explicitly not an endorsement of the title. Thryduulf (talk) 00:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep to help preserve the history of the pagemove. Retarget to resolve the double-redirect. Kudos to the nominator for finding and correcting the mistaken title but the right answer is to move the page and leave the redirect in place as further evidence of the correction. As Thryduulf notes, redirects are not endorsements of a title. Rossami (talk) 14:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another suggestion (I still don't agree that the revision is needed for attribution, as it was never part of the moved page) - redirect to Pick-Up Truck, a song that was released as a single. Peter E. James (talk) 18:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Israel Occupation Forces[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. Danger (talk) 14:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect name is politically loaded and unnecessarily provocative (does NPOV apply to redirects?), while the term itself is barely verifiable and rarely used. It can be found only in a limited amount of partisan sources (Google shows ~500 results), and it is not used within WP main namespace. Thus, I suggest to delete it. ElComandanteChe (talk) 23:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. NPOV does not apply to redirects (see WP:RNEUTRAL) and being an orphan is not a reason to delete a redirect (most redirects should be orphans). Additionally, it is discouraging the creation of a POV fork at this title and is getting a fair number page views. Thryduulf (talk) 00:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree, as Pro-Palestine people call it Israeli Occupation Forces, as these forces are illegally occupying land from Palestine, Syria & Lebanon, and these forces are operating in these occupied territories against the international law, UN resolutions, against the occupied people's well and without permission. So since these forces are operating outside Israel, they are not defensive forces, they are occupying forces/military; that's why their name IOF. You can use the term IDF only when these forces are operating within inside the borders of Israel, and not outside! please show some respect to the Palestinian people and their perspective.
    Moreover, the term IOF is mentioned in numerous academic, media, pro-peace, international and human rights organizations and websites. just a simple google and it direct you to hundreds of thousands of sources!--82.213.38.2 (talk) 11:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thryduulf is correct that WP:NPOV does not apply to redirects. Redirects are explicitly not endorsements of a title. This phrase is pejorative and of questionable accuracy but it is more common than the nomination suggests (though the usual format is Israeli occupation forces). At least some of the variants (capitalization, Force vs Forces, Israel vs Israeli, etc) have been previously discussed at RfD and kept, though at least one discussion concluded with a retargetting to a now-deleted "Controversies" section. Keep but not necessarily as-is. If the "Controversies" content was moved to a different article, these pejorative redirects should probably point there instead. Rossami (talk) 14:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably you mean these two:
    1. Israeli Occupation Forces → Israel Defense Forces#Controversies
    2. Israeli occupation forces → Israel Defense Forces#Controversies
    Still I don't see the point in keeping any of them (except may be POV fork prevention), since none shows more than several hundreds results in Google and Yahoo:
Term Google result count Yahoo result count
"Israel Occupation Force" 339 131
"Israel Occupation Forces" 511 239
"Israeli Occupation Force" 473 398
"Israeli Occupation Forces" 670 566
Please note that the initial search shows millions of results, but if you click through the search result pages the number drops to hundreds.
Also, I've looked into the previous discussions (from Feb 2008 and July 2008), the "keep" decision was based in on the false assumption that the term is widely used. Actually, not being a common misnomer, the latest redirect, created less than 2 months ago, is deletable under CSD R3. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 17:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two procedural comments.
    1) The "recently created" clause of CSD R3 is applies to titles created in the last few minutes, days at most. Titles that have more history have too high a potential for inbound links (internal or external) for speedy-deletion.
    2) I don't think Google works the way you think it does. Google only ever analyzes the first thousand hits in its database. It then deduplicates without replacement and shows only the subset of that thousand which it considers "unique". While a very low number (in the tens) can be an indicator of a true lack of popularity, deduplicated results sets in the hundreds are no longer saying anything useful. Wikipedia:Google test#Google unique page count issues has more on how to interpret hit counts. Rossami (talk) 21:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1) Gotcha. 2) In Google search, if you hit the last page and then click the link "repeat the search with the omitted results included", and again click through to the last page, you actually see 1000 results exactly (assuming there are at least 1000 results), which makes me think that this option shows all the duplicates. The numbers above are produced by this method. Just to mention, the numbers I've got before switching to the "include omitted" mode were roughly 1.5 times lower. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 23:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I used to think that was how Google results operated, too, but apparently it's not true. Google does some level of deduplication that can be clicked through and another level that can not. I don't really understand it and Google considers it proprietary so they won't explain it but smarter people than me have reverse-engineered their algorithm enough to prove in prior XfD discussions that we can't use hit counts that way. I've proven it to my own satisfaction by searching against a website that I maintain with several hundred pages (and I do know them to be fully indexed) yet which only returned 22 "deduplicated" and 33 "with duplicate" results. The full thousand hits apparently only show up for search terms where there are many, many thousands of potential hits. Rossami (talk) 04:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Anyhow, I guess, we can assume from the above that the term "Israel Occupation Force" is not a common synonym for IDF. Thus, WP:RFD#D3 (redirect is offensive or abusive) and possibly WP:RFD#D8 (redirect is a novel) apply. I don't see how any of WP:RFD#KEEP apply, or how WP:RNEUTRAL apply (since, per WP:POVTITLE, it requires a significant amount of RS). Actually, WP:RNEUTRAL describes exactly this kind of redirects as a deletable exception. Additionally, the redirect is relatively new and has very simple edit history, so it can not be kept only per WP:RFD#HARMFUL. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 17:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, my point is that we can not assume that, at least not based on the evidence available so far. The Google test is unreliable for the point you're trying to make. To your other points, POVTITLE does not apply to redirects. As you saw in RNEUTRAL, redirects are held to a significantly lower standard. In this case, I continue to think that the pejorative redirect has value because it preempts the creation of a POV fork (which would be much worse than a mere pejorative redirect). Rossami (talk) 03:25, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does Google Scholar with 6 marches or Google Books with 63 matches form an evidence strong enough? Please not that I'm suggesting a deletion of "Israel Occupation Forces" (1) only, not the more popular "Israeli Occupation Forces" (2). There is a good chance that (1) is simply a misspelling of (2), while keeping (2) as POV fork blocker sounds completely reasonable to me.
Term Google Scholar Google Books
"Israel Occupation Forces" 6 63
"Israeli Occupation Forces" 414 344

--ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:23, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We explicitly keep redirects from common misspellings and common misnomers of/for article titles, so were "Israeli Occupation Forces" an article the redirect to it would be an obvious keep - I don't see why that should be any different because the title is itself a redirect not an article. Thryduulf (talk) 23:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My point is, "Israel Occupation Forces" is not so common misspelling or misnomer. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 07:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With those hit counts in book and scholar searches combined with the web hits above, my opinion is that the term is very likely to be searched (helping people find what they are looking for is one of the main points of redirects) and so we should have either articles or redirects at this title. Given the title is not suitable for an article, that mean we should have a redirect. Redirects are so cheap, the threshold for keeping them around is very low - basically if it useful and doing no harm ("harm" principally meaning being misleading or getting in the way of something else) it is normally kept. Thryduulf (talk) 08:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find it very misleading and very offensive and very abusive when you referee to a military occupation forces operating illegally in a foreign occupied and terrorizing an entire civilian population as a defense forces and not as occupation one. Show some respect to the international law, US resolutions, and to the Palestinian people, and to the victims!--82.213.38.2 (talk) 07:10, 6 April 2011 (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/2011_April_3&oldid=616124806"