Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 October 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 6[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 6, 2012

User:Johnny Alexutzzu[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 deleted WP:CSD#G8 redirect to a deleted page. JohnCD (talk) 18:53, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this *technically* qualifies for speedy, but it's a redirect from a user to a mainspace page for a musician. Regardless of whether they are the same person or not, it's not an appropriate redirect. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 23:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why not tag for G8? The target page has been deleted. "Pepper" @ 11:58, 7 October 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.

History of persecutions by Christians[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. In both of these discussions, numerous reasonable ideas were brought to the table. While there was no consensus on what type of change should be implemented, there's certainly no consensus for keeping it as is either. While this defaults to keep, there's no prejudice against future changes. Swarm X 20:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another bad redirect to a random sub-topic. See my rationale in the discussion on the "#Persecution by Christians" one. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:43, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing "random" about it. The only decent content in this WP:POVFORK was related to the persecution of paqans. The rest was on the crusades (which belongs in an article on religious wars, and some very badly miscourced and plain wrong stuff on the Inquisition which read like it was written by a ten year old and cited to some militant atheist blog (yup, that's right). Given that the redirect makes perfect sense. Volunteer Marek  18:42, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How is Persecution of Jews in the First Crusade which happened in Europe (not in the Middle East) not part of the "History of persecutions by Christians"? Tijfo098 (talk) 19:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As for the Inquisition being described as persecution, see this academic book written by a historian, for instance. There are plenty more who describe it in those terms. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:26, 6 October 2012 (UTC) PS: Author's page is [http://www.history.upenn.edu/faculty/peters.shtml here. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:32, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You should actually read that article (Persecution of Jews in the First Crusade). For starters, because it was "Persecution of Jews by Crusaders", who were of course Christians. Note the bishops mentioned in the article. Basically, articles like these just don't make sense ("[[Persecutions by xyz") unless they have a more narrowly defined topic like the first crusade one. Volunteer Marek  19:30, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They make even less sense as redirects to a random sub-topic. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:32, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Make it a disambig page then. Volunteer Marek  19:34, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As far as that Inquisition source you link to is concerned... well, I'm not sure what to say, except that you should perhaps read the source yourself first before recommending it to others. A good chunk of that book is about the construction of the myths surrounding the Inquisition, which don't really jive with your position. Volunteer Marek  19:34, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"What made it possible [...] to distinguish The Inquisition from other similar forms of religious persectution was [...]" That means it is considers by that historian to be form of religious persectuion. That issue is not part of the myths about the Inquisition the book is challenging. Duh. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:46, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It helps if one reads the entire chapter rather than just a sentence cherry picked via google books search. Volunteer Marek  19:55, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, here's another [1]: "Originally designed for the express purpose of examining the sincerity of Jewish converts (called marranos), the Inquisition quickly gathered momentum and eventually led to the persecution of the entire Jewish population of the peninsula [...]" Still you claim it wasn't persecution? Tijfo098 (talk) 19:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, now do you have a source which discusses the Inquisition and "persecution of Pagans by Christians" together? If not, then it's SYNTH. We already have an article on the Inquisition, there's no need for this POVFORK. Like I said, make it in to a disambig page. Volunteer Marek  20:37, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the (former) article was ill advised precisely because of your concerns (SNYT). But the redirect—which is what we're supposed to discuss here—is silly too because many topics qualify as "persecution by Christians" and no Wikipedia article has a full history of those. (To my knowledge no academic effort to compile such a history has been attempted; the topic fails WP:N because it's apparently too broad.) "Persecution by Christians" might possibly be a dab (although not a usual one, see WP:DAB), but this one certainly not because the name implies a comprehensive history. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:40, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - illogical redirect. --Nouniquenames 22:45, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-target Both to Christian debate on persecution and toleration. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 19:43, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • After looking at the proposed target, it is a somewhat plausible target. However, the "historical overview" there is only a sample of persecutions, written with the intent of providing background for the ideological "debate", which more properly said is itself a history of the Christian ideology on this issue. I think the "debate" in the title has attracted some WP:OR towards the end of that article. It should probably be renamed to History of Christian ideology of religious persecution and toleration or something like that. Tijfo098 (talk) 00:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • That article also has a problem of scope. It's largely based on a single source [2] focused on England so the title is more or less a misnomer. As no single source has even attempted a such a broad topic, it runs into the same "SYNT" issue VM and I discussed above. Tijfo098 (talk) 00:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert to the article that it was before Marek blanked out the article and made it a redirect. From the establishment of Christianity as the religion of the Roman Empire in the 4th century to the Thirty Years War before the subsequent rise of religious toleration of the 17th century there is a 13 century history of persecution and intolerance by Christian authorities. This simple redirect is inadequate to direct the reader to the vast literature on the topic. One either needs a whole article or a list to the articles where we write on the various episodes of Christian persecution of other non-Christian religions or other Christian denominations. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:42, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry, but we're discussing the redirect here. Anyway, what was there before the redirect was a poor-quality WP:CFORK of Christian debate on persecution and toleration#Historical background; at its peak it looked like this. Tijfo098 (talk) 11:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree we should avoid a fork. If the information is distributed among many articles (and you gave one example--I could give others) my last suggestion that we need a multi-direct (or disambiguation) to " a list to the articles" should be a better option to help the reader with the appropriate pointers. The subject is too vast--covering over 1000 years and half the globe--for the reader to track down the whole history. Jason from nyc (talk) 13:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seems a bit weak for a "high-level" article. Kind of an excuse (as one tagger put it) for coatrack. Might be better served by a Portal or "see alsos" or navigation template in the other articles. Student7 (talk) 20:07, 9 October 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.

Template:CAGov[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 as unlikely to help. Tikiwont (talk) 17:12, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused historical template redirect. MBisanz talk 15:09, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep redirects are not supposed to be used, they are there to let people know what the correct one to use is, when they use the wrong one. All template and category redirects should be empty. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. "CA" means Canada using the ISO country abbreviations, and this is for California, not Canada, so is emminently confusable. -- 70.24.247.66 (talk) 05:07, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or change Awfully confusing. Works by California are in the public domain (see {{PD-CAGov}}), so it looks very confusing to have a template which says that works aren't in the public domain. Also, {{Non-free USStateGov|CA}} should mention that the template doesn't apply to works made by the Californian government. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:36, 12 October 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.

Template:Withpermission[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 to delete. Tikiwont (talk) 21:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused historical template redirect. MBisanz talk 15:05, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep redirects are not supposed to be used, they are there to let people know what the correct one to use is, when they type in the wrong one. All template and category redirects should be empty. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:13, 6 October 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.

Template:HKGovtCopyright[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 to delete. Tikiwont (talk) 21:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused orphaned historical template redirect. MBisanz *Keep redirects are not supposed to be used, they are there to let people know what the correct one to use is, when they use the wrong one. All template and category redirects should be empty. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC) talk 15:02, 6 October 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.

Template:Official document[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 16:13, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused orphaned historical template redirect. MBisanz talk 15:02, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No objections from me as creator, if it's genuinely unused. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:02, 6 October 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.

Template:Fair use-firefox[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 18:46, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused orphaned historical template redirect. MBisanz talk 15:00, 6 October 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.

Template:HKCrownCopyright[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 to delete. Tikiwont (talk) 21:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused historical template redirect. MBisanz talk 15:00, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep redirects are not supposed to be used, they are there to let people know what the correct one to use is, when they use the wrong one. All template and category redirects should be empty. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:13, 6 October 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.

Template:Television-screenshot[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 to delete. Tikiwont (talk) 21:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused historical template redirect. MBisanz talk 14:59, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep redirects are not supposed to be used, they are there to let people know what the correct one to use is, when they use the wrong one. All template and category redirects should be empty. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:13, 6 October 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.

Template:ParliamentofAustralia[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 16:16, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused historical template redirect. MBisanz talk 14:58, 6 October 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.

Template:Album cover[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 to delete. Tikiwont (talk) 21:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused historical template redirect. MBisanz talk 14:56, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep redirects are not supposed to be used, they are there to let people know what the correct one to use is, when they use the wrong one. All template and category redirects should be empty. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:13, 6 October 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.

Template:PD-Coa[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, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused historical template redirect. MBisanz talk 14:52, 6 October 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.

Template:Song sample[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 to delete. Tikiwont (talk) 21:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused historical template redirect. MBisanz talk 14:50, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep redirects are not supposed to be used, they are there to let people know what the correct one to use is, when they use the wrong one. All template and category redirects should be empty. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:13, 6 October 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.

Template:SAM-Coupé-game-screenshot[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 18:48, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused historical template redirect. MBisanz talk 14:50, 6 October 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.

Persecution by Christians[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. Swarm X 19:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Highly questionable redirect. Why not the Spanish Inquisition or the Crusades? No single topic qualifies for this vague title. Tijfo098 (talk) 13:50, 6 October 2012 (UTC) Tijfo098 (talk) 13:50, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note. Neither the Inquisitions nor the Crusades were persecution. --Luke-Jr (talk) 14:00, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • See my comments above [7]. The crusades were a religious war and that's where the info belongs. The inquisition stuff was cited to some militant atheist blog. Volunteer Marek  18:47, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thinking about it, this page could probably work well as a disambig page. Volunteer Marek  18:49, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - would be ok as a disambig, but improper as a redirect to a single article. --Nouniquenames 22:47, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-target Both to Christian debate on persecution and toleration. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 19:43, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep From the establishment of Christianity as the religion of the Roman Empire in the 4th century to the Thirty Years War before the subsequent rise of religious toleration of the 17th century there is a 13 century history of persecution and intolerance by Christian authorities. This simple redirect is inadequate to direct the reader to the vast literature on the topic. One either needs a whole article or a list to the articles where we write on the various episodes of Christian persecution of other non-Christian religions or other Christian denominations. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:39, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Turn into disambiguation page. There a many topics which could plausibly qualify under this heading.OrangesRyellow (talk) 02:50, 6 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.

Douchemark[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 "douchemark", delete rest. Swarm X 19:50, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural nom. Original nominator is User:HowardStrong. Nominator has listed this pages incorrectly at WP:AFD and then attempted to speedy them with an invalid speedy tag.

Reasoning at WP:AFD is "Flagrant,vandalistic,spam, not notable, etc." Reasoning at speedy was implausible typo.

Procedural nom only. No opinion about these articles. Redfarmer (talk) 12:47, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • These are flagrant redirects made as an attempt to vilify the Bitcoin article. Thank you, Redfarmer, for your help.--HowardStrong (talk) 13:06, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep "Autism Kroner" as there is evidence of use, albeit limited, which suggests this is a plausible search term. Per WP:RNEUTRAL redirects do not need to be neutral if they are useful for other purposes. Delete "Douchemark" and "Dunning-Krugerrand" as there is no evidence of use for these terms to refer to Bitcoins (Douchemark is a prominent website and so gets lots of ghits, but nothing relevant that I could see). Thryduulf (talk) 16:30, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can you elaborate on that use? I've not heard it and all I'm finding on google is a couple anonymous comments on low profile forums and blog comments and some twitter arguments; for all I know it could just be the same person who created the initial redirect. Am I missing something substantive? (links would be helpful)--Gmaxwell (talk) 00:05, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have no objection to retargetting "Douchemark" as suggested below. Thryduulf (talk) 22:56, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Douchemark to Deutschemark as possible good-faith mishearing. I'd delete the rest. --Nouniquenames 22:49, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep "Autism Kroner" has been used legitimately to refer to Bitcoin, and I believe Dunning-Krugerrand has also been used as far as the Bitcoin Community goes. --Brandon (TehBrandon) (talk) 13:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


  • Redirect Douchemark to Deutschemark, delete the others. Unless I'm missing the meaning somehow, "Autism Kroner" seems rather offensive, and searching for usage of the term yielded one strange website mentioning it and one twitter comment, that's it. - SudoGhost 22:05, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is just trolling, please delete. These are not useful redirects gadgetgeez —Preceding undated comment added 08:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, absent the examples I requested earlier it just seems like some kid trying out some clever insults.--Gmaxwell (talk) 04:28, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget Douchemark to Deutschemark urban directory has this meaning, delete Autism Kroner and Dunning-Krugerrand all sources seem very unreliable, many seem to be wikipedia mirrors.--Salix (talk): 14:39, 16 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.

Template:Zimbabwe-history-stub[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 16:14, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural, This redirect is now unused, and was listed at WP:AWB/TR for update. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:27, 6 October 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_October_6&oldid=1140250426"