Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 September 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 1[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 1, 2012

Scum Lake[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 it meanwhile has been expanded by papageno. Tikiwont (talk) 19:08, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear that there is an actual lake called Scum Lake, and that there is a small fishing and hunting place (resort is probably too big a word) there; it's unclear whether there is a community there too. Whatever, the lake and settlement are not the same as the airport, although they are adjacent. If the two should be dealt with together then I think the redirect should be reversed and the article placed at Scum Lake or Scum Lake, British Columbia (WP:CANSTYLE#Places suggests the former, I think), but if there is a settlement of any sort then deletion per WP:REDLINK might be better. Thryduulf (talk) 23:47, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both. There are at least two Scum Lakes in Canada, the one in BC and the other in Ontario. So in theory Scum Lake should be a disambiguation, Scum Lake, British Columbia should redirect to Scum Lake (British Columbia), which should be the article on the lake. The airport should stay where it is. Of course we don't have an article on either of the lakes so both redirects should be deleted. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 01:00, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Based on the excellent work done by papageno I have struck my delete. everything should be Keep. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 14:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both - Per CambridgeBayWeather. A page called Scum Lake should either go to the unique lake of that name (if an article on it exists) or a DAB which distinguishes all the lakes that share that name. EdJohnston (talk) 01:12, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to encourage creation of new articles and/or dab.--Lenticel (talk) 00:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Scum Lake, British Columbia, as no such official place (settlement) exists per BC Geographical Names and the Canadian Geogaphical Names Board.
    Keep and convert Scum Lake, as two lakes of that name exist in Canada (as others have noted, and perhaps others exist elsewhere in the world) per BC Geographical Names and the Canadian Geogaphical Names Board and create a DAB article. I would be happy to do the latter task, pending the outcome of this discussion. How does this sound? --papageno (talk) 15:35, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've certainly got no objection to that, but it would be more useful to write an article about one or both of the lakes first. A disambiguation page consisting of only red links is not unlikely to be nominated for deletion. WP:MOSDAB does explicitly say that redlinks not used in articles should not appear on disambiguation pages - I think it used to say that dab pages should not contain only redlinks, but either I'm misremembering or the standard has moved on. Thryduulf (talk) 00:02, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can start by making Scum Lake a set index article and without any links to non-existent sub articles. This will get if off the list of issues with redirects. I'll then create the two lake articles as Scum Lake (British Columbia) and Scum Lake (Ontario); finally, convert Scum Lake to a {{geodis}} page.--papageno (talk) 16:31, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have gone and created Scum Lake (British Columbia) and Scum Lake (Ontario). I have also redirected any existing links to Scum Lake, British Columbia in lists or articles to Scum Lake (British Columbia) instead. I think someone can safely delete Scum Lake, British Columbia, and I can go ahead and convert Scum Lake to a geodis page, skipping the intermediate set index article step.--papageno (talk) 18:54, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think Scum Lake, British Columbia is a very likely search term for Scum Lake (British Columbia) so should be kept as a redirect to that page. Thank you for the work you've put in here. Thryduulf (talk) 01:17, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks for the kind words. I have changed Scum Lake to a Geodis page, and changed the redirect for Scum Lake, British Columbia from Scum Lake Airport to Scum Lake (British Columbia). No issue with keeping Scum Lake, British Columbia. Perhaps someone more familiar than I with closing out the Re-dreicts for discussion templates and process can look after that on the Scum Lake and Scum Lake, British Columbia pages as well as here. --papageno (talk) 14:32, 7 September 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.

Department of Psychology[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are many departments of psychology; Princeton's is not a default. Should probably just return search results instead of redirecting. Churn and change (talk) 17:04, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The only thing such a generic term like this could usefully link to would be a list of psychology departments, but I cannot conceive of a list of (almost exclusively non-notable) departments of psychology at schools, universities, hospitals, psychiatric institutions and possibly other places (law-enforcement agencies?) ever being useful. Thryduulf (talk) 17:40, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete too generic to point to the target article.--Lenticel (talk) 00:44, 3 September 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.

William Balfour (murderer)[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. It is a useful search term. Ruslik_Zero 17:08, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unlikely search phrase and although true, it's unneeded as he has an entry at William Balfour (disambiguation). Insomesia (talk) 10:43, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep, the existence of a disambiguation page is evidence that people will search for people by this name with disambiguated titles; the presence of an entry for him on the dab page is evidence that he is likely to be searched for. Then, add on to that the 737 hits in August, 1466 in May (when he was convicted) and the links from three articles and four current events portals and you have a redirect that gets orders of magnitude more use than average. Note though that the targetted section title has changed so I have updated the redirect accordingly and added and {{anchor}} at the target. Thryduulf (talk) 12:14, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure all those current event links need to even exist for him, he's basically a footnote in Jennifer Hudson's bio and WP:Recentism suggests we'll not need any redirect at all. The only reason he's known is because the murders were of a famous person's relatives. Insomesia (talk) 12:24, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's irrelevant why he is known, all that matters is whether people will search for him - and the stats show very firmly that they do.In any case, which criminals gain notoriety is very hit an miss - Ian Huntley didn't kill anyone famous, nor did Vincent Tabak. Remember that there are several levels of notability, but when a level is reached it is always at least that notable (WP:NTEMP), and it's also worth noting that WP:RECENTISM doesn't apply to the current events pages as they are explicitly a record of the then current. We can't know whether people will continue to search for information about him in the future (cf WP:CRYSTAL), so we can only judge on the present available evidence which shows that this redirect is in the big leagues for traffic. Thryduulf (talk) 14:24, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Anyone who searches for him will be correctly directed to the dab page for people with the same name, where is lists that he is the murderer of people from Jennifer Hudson's family. All the information we have is about his murdering a famous person's family members and that is already housed on her article ergo this redirect serves no purpose. The only people going there are doing so because of Hudson and they are all being sent to her article anyway. I see no logic for keeping it. Do we have a report on how many people typed in William Balfour and then chose the murderer one. Otherwise it seems the only traffic is really from prior links incorrectly sending people to a redirect when the same sentence explains he murdered people from Jennifer Hudson's family. I'm just not seeing the logic but I'm open to an explanation that makes the case. Insomesia (talk) 01:37, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's not possible to know how many people click a link, or who use other methods of finding a page, but there are many ways that people use to find articles. In this case this includes clicking on an internal link from an article or from the dab page, clicking on a link in an external website, via the internal search engine, via an external search engine (general or specific to Wikipedia), typing "William Balfour (murderer)" into the search box and clicking "go", entering the URL directly, and almost certainly other ways I can't think of off the top of my head. Given the numbers visiting the redirect, the balance of probabilities would suggest that all these methods are being used by at least some people. Deleting the redirect will inconvenience everybody who arrives here by any method other than an internal link.
            You also seem confused about the purpose of a redirect, "All the information we have is about his murdering a famous person's family members and that is already housed on her article ergo this redirect serves no purpose. The only people going there are doing so because of Hudson and they are all being sent to her article anyway." These people are arriving at Hudson's article because this redirect takes them to the specific section of her article. There is more information about Balfour on the Hudson article than anywhere else (which, as he isn't notable enough for his own article, is as it should be), so the redirect is taking people to that information - the exact purpose of a redirect. What benefit will deletion bring? Thryduulf (talk) 06:57, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Perhaps we should wait a few months and see if the numbers still justify any redirect? The investigation and trial all happened recently so perhaps these numbers will be low enough that a redirect will seem to serve no purpose. Insomesia (talk) 08:59, 3 September 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.

«Самұрық-Қазына» Ұлттық Әл-Ауқат қоры» АҚ[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, R3 by User:The_Blade_of_the_Northern_Lights Lenticel (talk) 03:31, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Improbable typo, there is either an extra closing quote or a missing opening quotation mark, and it is quite impossible to see how either could come about. ; This was previously deleted by CSD#R3 on 25 August 2012. 76.65.128.252 (talk) 07:28, 1 September 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.

Менің Қазақстаным[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 both. Ruslik_Zero 17:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete these two redirects use non-English disambiguation, since the topic of these two redirects is actually "Менің Қазақстаным", and the first is a song and the second is a hymn. Since a hymn is a type of song, even the Kazahk terms are ambiguously used. But as this is English Wikipedia, the two redirects should be called Менің Қазақстаным (song) and Менің Қазақстаным (hymn) respectively, though in both cases "song/ән" is ambiguous, and should not be used. Instead we already have disambiguation page at Менің Қазақстаным. -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 08:16, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget "Менің Қазақстаным (ән)" to My Kazakhstan and strong keep "Менің Қазақстаным (әнұран)". I need a resolution to the two redirects. --Jadambyn Byamakov (talk) 11:34, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both. Non-English disambiguation is distinctly unhelpful to the English language Wikipedia. The creator's only contributions are creating and discussing foreign script redirects, who arrived during the discussion of others of this type, strongly suggests a single-purpose account. Thryduulf (talk) 12:09, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - useful for navigation, no rationale presented for deletion. Retargetting may be appropriate. WilyD 09:39, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • In what way is Kazakh language disambiguation useful for the navigation of the English Wikipedia? Also, both "non-English disambiguation" and "ambiguous disambiguators" are given as reasons for deletion - you may disagree that they apply (either generally or in this specific case) but you cannot deny a rationale was given. Thryduulf (talk) 10:55, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • They allow first language Kazakh speakers to more easily find the content (which, if they speak reasonable but not flawless English, they might want to do for many reasons. Note that reading a language is much, much easier than writing it, I have used the French Wikipedia for this reason). I dispute that those are rationales for deletion, any more than they're rationales for eating sandwiches. They're non-sequitors. WilyD 08:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • The reason we keep foreign languages related to the target is to help English speakers who may come across the native language term and want to find out about it, as it is not unusual for such terms to be embedded in otherwise English language sources. The only place that anybody is going to come across a string composed of a Kazakh language term and a parenthesised Kazakh language disambiguator is in the Kazakh language Wikipedia. If they are there then they can easily read the Kazakh language articles and, if they want to read the English articles, follow the interwiki link. If they are on the English Wikipedia and want to look up an article for which they only know the Kazakh title, they can prepend their search with "kk:" and they will be taken to the Kazakh Wikipedia; if they are elsewhere they can search the Kazakh language Wikipedia just as easily as the English language one.
          The key point here is that this is the English language Wikipedia, where we cater only to English speakers (those learning English can use the simple English Wikipedia). This is not racist or anything like that because speakers of other languages are catered for by the other editions of Wikipedia.
          Finally, the rationales presented for deletion are valid ones for deleting a redirect which can be easily demonstrated: If these were redirects from ambiguous Kazakh-language titles with ambiguous Kazakh-language disambiguators to articles about Swiss patriotic songs the rational would apply just as much as it does now and they would attract a consensus for deletion. Your disagreeing that the valid reasons given for deleting some redirects apply to these specific redirects does not make them invalid. Thryduulf (talk) 09:59, 18 September 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_September_1&oldid=1050185143"