Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 November 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 17[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 17, 2012

Aunite[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 as a redirect. Ruslik_Zero 18:47, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editor originally created the article Hugh Montgomery (historian) which was deleted by AfD. Now pushing ideas from this author into articles. This is from Montgomery's The God-Kings of Europe: The Descendents of Jesus Traced Through the Odonic ... By Hugh Montgomery, PH.[1], not a RS, and I can find no reliable sources about this tribe or king. No one is likely to use this as a search term. Dougweller (talk) 21:24, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this was originally an article which wouldn't have passed our notability criteria, but as when I found it it was a redirect I couldn't AfD it. Dougweller (talk) 21:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I am using both Hugh and Bo Gabriel's works to guide me through history, which largely correlate and are based on the work of academic bodies such as the Royal Swedish Academy of Letters, History and Antiquities that I have been facelifting all afternoon fyi.

I think this article should meet notability criteria specifically because:

  • It is the recorded name of the Danes that invaded York in 866 CE.
  • Currently, our information lists Vikings or Norse as the people who invaded, which is misleading as those words are generally thought to include the Swedish, which is not accurate. The Swedes weren't there.
  • The commentary in the Duald Mac Firbis (1860). Annals of Ireland: Three Fragments. Irish Archaeological and Celtic Society. pp. 3–. Retrieved 17 November 2012. book describes the Aunites and the Norwegians in conflict with the Irish later as well.
  • Grouping tribes under the Viking banner is as bad a generalization as grouping South and North America to call someone American and when speaking of history, one should be specific.
  • Specifically if you start searching European scholarly publications in a search for Montgmery's terminlology in foreign language publications from Academies such as the one above, you start getting loads of hits and and start getting the idea that the REDIRECT should probably go to the tribe's name directly Aunjetitzi and I should go do some more Scandinavian translation to help expand what should be an interesting article.

Some foreign language sources citing Aunjetitzi Archaeologiai értesítő. Akadémiai Kiadó. 1986. Retrieved 17 November 2012.Folia Archaeologica. Népművelési Propaganda Iroda. 1958. Retrieved 17 November 2012.

In my opinion also, the 1968 Montgomery book that Hugh took his material from has taken a lot of Scandinavian scholarly material, translated it into English and should be used as a reliable source in some circumstances, if not abused making reference to any non-sensical theories that can't be explained elsewhere in scholarly publications. I hope this explains some. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 22:08, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is one question and one question only in defining notability - significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. A term that has only received passing reference except in two related extremely unreliable works, is not notable, so as an article, it had to go. Why then a redirect rather than AfDing it? Because if someone reads about it in one of those Montgomery books and decides to search, it would be better to have it point to the authentic history. Also, the term has appeared in scholarly work, just not been given more than a sentence of discussion. Such a redirect may also forestall a re-creation of the page. Because the name appears in an Irish source describing the Danish and Norse activity there and in England, I deemed Norse activity in the British Isles to be the best target. (And no, it is not inappropriate - just because the term Viking also encompasses Swedes, that does not mean that to be vikings a group had to have each ethnic group represented, any more than to refer to Anglo-Saxons as Germanic, when that term also includes Franks and Saxons.) It should not redirect to some newly-to-be-created page on a tribe that only the Montgomery fringe seems to feel has anything to do with Aunites. Agricolae (talk) 22:31, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have just e-mailed Doug a copy of Hugh Montgomery (historian)'s certificate of presidency at Megatrend starting his term of office on 17 October 2000, and the correct rector to confirm his status, so do please watch who you call "fringe". I disagree entirely with the blanket that you are trying to pull over history and think we should refer to ethnic groups as they appear in sources, not in made-up groupings as an editor may see fit. I can probably reference the article in a half dozen foreign language sources if you want more. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 22:38, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Even were it true that he was executive at a glorified business school, that hardly qualifies someone as an expert in medieval history or genealogy. Fringe is defined by Wikipedia as differing from the scholarly mainstream, and that is an accurate description of all of the genealogical works by both of these authors, as we have already discussed. The 'president' traces lines to Jesus, ergo his writings are fringe. Full stop. Further, it is irrelevant to the question here. The question here is whether a redirect should exist at all for the term Aunite, and if it should, where should it point. You are right that we should follow the sources, and the sources (both the primary one and the reliable secondary ones) simply equate this term with the Danish vikings. Agricolae (talk) 22:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bo Gabriel's book is primarily based on Winston Churchill's book "History", which is not fringe at all, B-G says that it "begins with Julius Ceasar, gives a brief archaeological survey and returns to the years of Roman ocupation. This is logical".
If Winston Churchill wrote about the Aunite then cite Winston Churchill, not Montgomery. Agricolae (talk) 01:13, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The REDIRECT should go somewhere like what the German Wikipedia says on the subject, so we can catch up with them. Full stop. [2] Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 23:16, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, we should not take a term used once by one Irish chronicle to describe 9th century AD Danish vikings and redirect it to a page about a Bronze Age culture that flourished in the 2nd and 3rd millennium BC. The two have nothing to do with each other. Agricolae (talk) 01:13, 18 November 2012 (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.

Wikipedia:WIKIINK[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 18:57, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be confused neither with WP:WIKILINK nor with WP:INK. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:10, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • What are you proposing here and why? "Not to be confused with" hatnotes relating to shortcuts are standard and common on many project pages. Thryduulf (talk) 19:01, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Pausible typo. WilyD 09:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate between the two topics above. Ego White Tray (talk) 05:27, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per the nom this is confusing. It is clearly not a plausible typo because apart from the day it was created it has had absolutely no hits (until this nomination). As no one is visiting this page there is no point disambiguating and no point adding hatnotes at the targets. Deletion is clearly the best option here. 82.132.139.10 (talk) 13:11, 9 December 2012 (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.

Districts and dependencies of Mauritius[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 Withdrawn/Disambiguate (non-admin closure). Issue resolved, nominator seems to no longer want this to be deleted. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 00:26, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This page previously contains materials both about the Districts of Mauritius and Territories and dependencies of Mauritius, as it can be seen i separate them in different articles as they are two completely different topic, one about the subdivision of the country and the other one about the territories (islands). So i want to delete this page to avoid confusion among editors and readers. I must also point out that one problem has arise now, the links on the left which redirect to the same article in other wikis (diff languages), still redirect these foreign language articles to this one Territories and dependencies of Mauritius as it is the original one, i have try to change them, but they are being added by bots. I hope someone can also solve this issue! Kingroyos (talk) 13:24, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • It seems to me that a disambiguation page would be a good idea, in the spirit of not breaking inbound links (from outside Wikipedia). Siuenti (talk) 13:42, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • disambiguate per Siuenti, in the apparent absence of an article emcompassing both. This redirect gets lots of traffic and there is no reason why we should break bookmarks, incoming links, etc. Thryduulf (talk) 18:57, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, i have made it a disambiguate page.Kingroyos (talk) 18:43, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I adjusted the disambig note. This isn't a normal disambig page where a reader looks up a term and we ask him what he meant by that term. In this case this was an article, but it was split and that's the only reason for the disambig page to exist. I suppose the disambig equivalent of an {{R from move}}. Anyway it looks like we found a solution here, any reason to leave this RFD open? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 12:48, 26 November 2012 (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.

Wikipedia:Essays[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 as is. While the nominator's rationale and subsequent comments certainly have merit, consensus is that the current target is best. Thryduulf (talk) 12:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Essays for consistency with the shortcuts WP:Essay and WP:ESSAYS. This shortcut is unadvertised - the shortcut given at the target (an essay about essays) is WP:WES - and little-used as a result (100 instances). I think that having shortcuts that only differ in capitalization but point to different places, even if they are both discussions of the same thing, is generally a bad idea. As it's been used so few times, fixing the current uses before doing the redirect would be a quick job. — Hex (❝?!❞) 13:12, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having investigated further, this shortcut has a mangled history. It originally did point to the policy, then got changed to point to the essay in question, got retargeted to the essay category, then put back to pointing at the essay! Short of comparing the date of every single usage of this shortcut against its history, there's no way to know what people have been specifically using it to refer to. I'd say the best thing would be to simply retarget it back to policy and let the existing uses lie. — Hex (❝?!❞) 13:20, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am saddened at the comments below, which are only serving to prolong a confusing mess. Oh well. — Hex (❝?!❞) 15:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and don't retarget. The proposed target may be the more "official" word on essays, but it's much less helpful or explanatory than the current target. I appreciate your intent, and I agree that WP:ESSAYS and WP:Essays shouldn't have different targets. See also this recent RM. --BDD (talk) 07:02, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep current target to the essay about essays at Wikipedia:Wikipedia essays. There's already a hatnote there to WP:ESSAYS. -- Trevj (talk) 14:22, 6 December 2012 (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.

Till the World Ends Tour[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 Femme Fatale Tour. See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 November 9#Till the World Ends World Tour. Tikiwont (talk) 11:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion. I would like to see this redirect deleted. This redirect has no reason to exist. This tour name was a fan name given to the Femme Fatale Tour when it was first announced. The name has never been official and it's just silly to keep it. Shadow (talk) 06:51, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget Fan name given to the Femme Fatale Tour, vealed {{R from alternative name}} The reason redirects exist is to direct readers to the article their looking for, not to be a list of official names. The States has never been an official name of the United States. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 08:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • True, but the The States is a different kind of example. This example was created because this person didn't like the real name of the tour. --Shadow (talk) 13:35, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per EHC above. It doesn't matter whether a name is official or not, nor who created it, nor even why it was created. All that matters is that the term is in use, which it is. The reason the redirect exists is so that readers searching for this term (via any one of many different ways) can find the information they are looking for, and, secondarily, to discourage the creation of a duplicate article. Thryduulf (talk) 19:06, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the retarget suggested is reasonable, and should be done. WilyD 09:58, 19 November 2012 (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/2012_November_17&oldid=1050185356"