Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 November 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 29[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 29, 2011

Prince Hall Masonic Temple (Harlem, New York)[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 Closed. (It has been converted to an article.) Ruslik_Zero 16:29, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a spurious incorrectly-titled redirect from a specific building to a generic dab page. This was created as part of something relating to Michael Brea, based solely on a statement attributed to Brea by a reporter: "He said that while riding the subway home from the Prince Hall Masonic Temple in Harlem on Monday" from this source. Redirects should not redirect to dab pages, and the title is incorrect, as Harlem is not a city in New York State, it is a neighborhood in New York City. MSJapan (talk) 22:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the author I wasn't informed of this, poor form. It's a real building and a valid redirect. I wish that this particular user would calm down. Getting rid of valid redirects that could grow into articles because you don't like the author. JASpencer (talk) 22:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Don't attempt to paint this as a personal issue; it's your editing behavior I don't like. You think it's poor form not to notify an editor? Well, it happens to everybody, so welcome to the most inclusive club on Wikipedia. Furthermore, I don't doubt that there is a "Prince Hall building" in Harlem; as a matter of fact, I would expect it to be there, and, having some knowledge about the subject, possibly more than one such building. So what I take issue with is that because the redirect was taken out of a throwaway reference you found in an article (a quote attributed to Michael Brea), and because you only took it as far as "existence", the redirect isn't even close to being right. It is inaccurate in title, incorrect due to lack of specificity (redirects go from general to specific, not the other way around), and lack of an appropriate target (a dab page which has no listing for said building on it, and would have no article if it did). So refute the evidence (especially given the context of your own user contributions) if I'm so incorrect in my assumptions about your editing proclivities. MSJapan (talk) 22:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: As an uninterested third party, based on the evidence at hand, I think this redirect should be deleted. It serves no purpose to have a redirect go to a disambiguation page, especially one that doesn't even list the subject. The disambiguation page it directs to only lists temples by that name in LA, Baton Rouge and Washington, so it only confuses the reader to have a redirect for a specific temple in NY go there. If you have sufficient evidence to create an article about this specific Masonic temple then by all means do so. MsBatfish (talk) 02:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken your suggestion. Let's see how it goes. JASpencer (talk) 20:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the address is correct, and this is the building that will be talked about (and not the other one in Harlem), the title is still wrong (and not just the "Harlem, New York" bit) - the building on 155th St. is the headquarters of the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of New York, and should very likely go into an article called "Prince Hall Grand Lodge of New York", in a section specifically on the building. Therefore, I still maintain that the page should be deleted. MSJapan (talk) 05:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Request a rename then. However the tag is now superflous as it's no longer a redirect. JASpencer (talk) 16:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Pro-Death[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 all except Pro-abortion, which is to be retargeted to Support for the legalization of abortion. Ruslik_Zero 16:55, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Nothing to be gained from the existence of this redirect; people typing it in aren't looking to be directed to the terminology section of Abortion debate, they're looking for the most smug way possible to reach Support for the legalization of abortion, and Wikipedia's purposes do not include helping people feel smug. Nothing links to it either, it's just a target for vandals. (See also the reasons behind the repeated deletion of the differently-capitalized Pro-death.) Ditto for similar unused, POV redirects, many created by the same single-purpose account. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:42, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"It makes sense, thus is valid"? What isn't making any sense is this comment. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm not a native English speaker. I wanted to say that this name of redirect is clearly related to the target and can be used as a search term. Didn't think my phrase was that cryptic. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It does not make sense, pro-choice is not pro-abortion. The Chinese government is pro-abortion, since it forces abortion on people who already have one child. That is not covered under the target. No forced abortions are covered under the target. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 09:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If we end up having to keep it due to lack of consensus, would a hatnote help? For example something along the lines of "Pro-abortion redirects here. If you are looking information on compulsory abortion, see One-child policy, Population control and Abortion"? MsBatfish (talk) 03:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all: These re-directs are all POV leading words and the most extreme form of loaded language, designed to elicit an emotional response and lead the reader to make false conclusions. The existence of these redirects also enables people to use these words as in-article links and give them validation. I disagree that "Pro-abortion" is a valid term or that it is "clearly related" to the target. "Pro-choice" people are not "pro-abortion", they are in support of a woman's right to choose whether to complete a pregnancy or not - that isn't the same thing. Not thinking that something should be illegal does not mean that you are "pro" that thing (for example someone who supports harm-reduction methods to deal with the issue of drug use is not "Pro-heroin"). I think all of these redirects are just attempts to validate loaded terms that are false and offensive. They are not commonly used or widely accepted euphemisms for the topics they refer to.
In addition even the Pro death one, which is the most appropriately targeted of the list, links to an article that (currently) does not mention this term anywhere.
By the way, I totally agree with you Roscelese & I get the gist of what you're saying, but I was a little confused by your statement "the most smug way possible to reach Support for the legalization of abortion" - did you mean to access that topic on Wikipedia, or did you mean to discredit that viewpoint or...? (Just in case others who read this are confused by it too). MsBatfish (talk) 08:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or disambiguate these are terms also used to describe people who support the death penalty, eugenics selection, baby sex determination, jihad, ... 70.24.248.23 (talk) 09:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Don't think they actually worth disambiguation of any kind. They are a way too generic and they aren't terms. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:27, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I stick to my previous vote for "Delete". But if that ends up not being a choice due to lack of consensus then my second choice would be to send them to the article Loaded language, and preferably expand that article to include these terms, what they have been used to refer to and by who. My third choice would be, if we are going to send them to a disambiguation page, that page must state something along the lines of: " 'Pro-death' is a pejorative loaded term used by some anti-abortion activists in reference to those that support legal abortion; please see Abortion Debate. 'Pro-death' may also be a loaded term used by some people who oppose legal voluntary euthanasia to refer to those who support it." It is important to note that these are terms, used by a very small number of people for a specific purpose, as opposed to having them represent the subjects themselves. But I don't really like either of these choices as it still gives these words validation, plus, as others said, they are very generic and confusing and they are not in common use.
It is not Wikipedia's place to support the use of highly offensive terms that are not in common use. Even for words that are widely known, the word/term does not direct to the article about the topic it is used by some to refer to, it directs to an article about the word/term itself and how/why it is used. For example, "Nigger" does not direct to Black people, it directs to an article about the word itself and its pejorative use. MsBatfish (talk) 03:07, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I could agree to that (keeping & retargeting Pro-abortion with the rationale that it could possibly be used innocently & deleting all the other redirects). I am not sure what Ammodramus meant in the last sentence though? Would find what in the lead of what article? MsBatfish (talk) 03:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I was unclear; I was thinking of the case of a reader, unfamiliar with the euphemisms used in the American debate over abortion, who'd learned that the anti-abortion-on-demand position was known as "pro-life", and wanted to find out what the pro-abortion-on-demand position was called. That reader, entering "Pro-life" would be redirected to Opposition to the legalization of abortion; and the term "pro-choice" is explained in the lead of that article. Thus redirects for "pro-death", "anti-life", etc., as opposites of "pro-life", seem unnecessary. Ammodramus (talk) 10:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. I agree :-) MsBatfish (talk) 21:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This discussion seems to have gone a bit stale. These redirects have now been listed for 9 days now. There seems to be a general consensus in the direction of deleting at least most of them, except for the Pro-abortion one which there hasn't yet been a consensus on. Does this need to be re-listed in order to generate some closure?
Thryduulf, you were the only one who suggested keeping them and making a disambiguation page. Do you still stick to that stance? Or can we at least do ahead and delete all the pro-death and anti-life ones? Thanks, MsBatfish (talk) 21:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this is a tiny tiny bit of a WP:TRAINWRECK...perhaps relisting "pro-abortion" and closing the rest would be in order. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

User:Drift chambers/Josef Bardanashvili[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 speedy delete per WP:CSD#U1. Thryduulf (talk) 12:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Josef Bardanashvili Drift chambers (talk) 19:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

User:Drift chambers/Dov Carmel[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 speedy delete per WP:CSD#U1. Thryduulf (talk) 12:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dov Carmel Drift chambers (talk) 18:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

TabletPCs[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 ~Alison C. (Crazytales) 07:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a never-used term which is an unlikely typo. Tablet PC already exists and will catch casual typists. One of these is never referred to as a "TabletPC" (without space). Pnm (talk) 17:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as harmless redirect from plural. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not just a plural. The correct term is "Tablet PC," not "TabletPC". --Pnm (talk) 21:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if that question was of any importance, how did You establish that? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:25, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, doesn't hurt anything. We already have TabletPC, so these should be treated together: best either to nominate both or to nominate neither. I'd say best to keep both: if you think that the correct singular is TabletPC, you're going to think that the plural is TabletPCs. It was used seven times in October: that's seven people that we would disappoint if we delete this redirect, and nobody will benefit from its deletion. Nyttend (talk) 01:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

User:Drift chambers/Gad Avrahami[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 speedy delete per WP:CSD#U1. Thryduulf (talk) 12:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Empty draft Drift chambers (talk) 16:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Template:Nonfree use rationale[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 ~Alison C. (Crazytales) 07:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment -- it is hard to get non free files properly described. I see lots of images that get deleted, or almost get deleted, which should qualify for fair use, that get deleted because no one manages to get the non-free templates used properly. This redirect makes it easier to find the correct templates, and make sure they are used properly. What is the downside to allowing this redirect to remain? Geo Swan (talk) 17:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it's a redirect, not a template, and I don't see the problem with it. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 04:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: it's editor's responsibility to find a right template. Keeping such redirects introduces bad practice. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We want to make it easier for people to license files they upload correctly. For starters it's more welcoming and secondly it means less work for others later (and the people who do NFCC work are bordering on overloaded as it is). Thryduulf (talk) 12:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

User:Drift chambers/Eitan Avitsur[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 Speedy Delete, U1. Lenticel (talk) 07:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shell of previous draft Drift chambers (talk) 16:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

User:Drift chambers/Emanuel Amiran-Pougatchov[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 speedy delete per WP:CSD#U1. User request to delete a page in their own namespace. Thryduulf (talk) 14:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Draft article page [not needed] Drift chambers (talk) 14:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Peters Valley Historic District[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 17:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peters Valley and Layton are two distinct settlements in Sussex County; see, for instance, the National Register of Historic Places nomination for PVHD. The Layton article makes no mention of Peters Valley or the PV Historic District. Only one page links to the redirect, and that's a list of National Register sites, on which a redlink is a useful signal to members of the WikiProject; so no harm would be done by deleting the redirect. Ammodramus (talk) 12:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Sex trafficking[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/retarget to Human trafficking. Jafeluv (talk) 10:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I propose at least one of these 2 redirects should either be deleted or retargeted. The only difference between them is is the capitalization of the 'T', yet one directs to Sexual Slavery and one to Human trafficking. Apparently there is not yet an article on Sex trafficking itself. Sex trafficking is not the same thing as sexual slavery and the Sexual slavery article does not contain a significant section on sex trafficking. I propose deletion of the Sex Trafficking redirect (because "Sex trafficking" is more in keeping with article naming conventions and has almost all of the incoming links) and changing the target of Sex trafficking to Human trafficking (until someone creates an article specifically about sex trafficking). --MsBatfish (talk) 14:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • retarget both to Human trafficking. Redirects from both capitalisations are useful, and there is no reason to delete either. The Human trafficking (lower t) article is the best target, and there is no reason the different capitalisations should redirect differently in this case. Thryduulf (talk) 15:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't understand why there is any reason to have both. Wikipedia's search box is not capitalization dependent, and it is confusing when you try to search for "sex trafficking" and they both come up as separate topics; even if you start to type in "Sex Trafficking" the auto-fill suggests "Sex trafficking" with higher placement than "Sex Trafficking". I don't see any practical use for the alternate capitalization of "Sex Trafficking"... do you? I have never personally seen any other case where this is done (having different capitalizations for the same article title as redirects), let alone intentionally. --MsBatfish (talk) 15:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's actually very common to have these sorts of redirects, see Category:Redirects from other capitalisations (and those are just the ones that have been explicitly tagged as such). There are several reasons to have them - it aids linking (you don't need to get the capitalisation right every time), they discourage the creation of duplicate topics and they help people to find the articles they want - there are lots of other ways of searching than just the internal search box, and many of them are case sensitive. Thryduulf (talk) 16:00, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok. Should I just change the target myself now, or am I supposed to wait until a certain time period has passed and/or get an admin to do it? MsBatfish (talk) 03:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

MV Glücksburg (1959)[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 Nuked following consultation by creator. The Bushranger One ping only 07:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect redirects to the wrong ship. MV Seashell is the former MV Glücksburg built in 1943; the 1959 ship doesn't appear to have a page. The Bushranger One ping only 06:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2011_November_29&oldid=1039424278"