Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 January 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 6[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 6, 2013

Masonic funeral service[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. Ruslik_Zero 16:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of this is the target article. MSJapan (talk) 23:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Now redirected to Maurerische Trauermusik. JASpencer (talk) 23:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply - That was Masonic funeral. I hadn't seen this one at the time, or I would have added it as a group nom. This redirect, as with the other, has also now been retargeted to an article to which it does not pertain, so the nomination still stands. MSJapan (talk) 01:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Not sure what this should point to... but the current redirect (to Mozart's Maurerische Trauermusik (or, in English, Mozart's "Masonic Funeral Music in C minor, K. 477 (K. 479a)") strikes me as the worst of the suggestions so far... anyone searching the words "Masonic funeral service" is probably looking for information on what a Masonic funeral is... they would not expect to be redirected to an article on a piece of music (that Mozart happened to write for one such occasion). Blueboar (talk) 02:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is a valid redirect, as it mentions a Masonic Funeral. You could always actually make it into a proper article. If you spent a tenth of the time that is spent on arguing for deletions or stricter standards to adding content you could make the case for your chosen hobby far more effectively. JASpencer (talk) 21:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep targeted at Masonic rituals, don't target to the Mozart piece. The Mozart piece has barely anything to do with the topic. The Mozart suggestion is like redirecting Live and Let Die (song) to movie since the song was written for a movie. Ego White Tray (talk) 07:41, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - except Masonic rituals doesn't mention it at all; that's the whole point of the nomination. MSJapan (talk) 04:58, 13 January 2013 (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.

Brotherhood of man[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. Ruslik_Zero 16:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brotherhood of man is a philosophical concept and should be red-linked in this list. The article on the British pop group has no information on the topic. I could not find a suitable target article. (Nothing here or here.) I suppose this is the same concept as fraternity (brotherhood) discussed in Liberté, égalité, fraternité. Both could be redirected to a section Fraternité in that article, if only such a section existed. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. – One could imagine this has something to do with the Marxist interpretation on Solidarity, but we do not have an article for it either, although many of the organizations listed here are named after the concept. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Article titles that differ only in capitalisation should generally be avoided, and so I would strongly recommend whichever of the concept and pop group is the primary topic having the plain title and the other capitalisation redirecting there, the other article would to a disambiguated title and be linked by a hatnote. Where we have an article on only one of a pair of topics with ambiguous titles, the article we do have is by definition primary and should take the plain title (expect in some cases where natural disambiguation is possible, it isn't here) at least until such time as the other article is written. To fix the incorrect link, change it to the title where the article should be written, e.g. Brotherhood of man (philosophy) or Brotherhood of man (concept) (or something, my knowledge of how such articles are typically disambiguated is all-but nil). Thryduulf (talk) 23:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the real articles should contain disambiguatory information, while a disambiguation page for both capitalizaions should exist if needed. -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 06:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But don't forget Frank Loesser's tune! and Rufus Harley's excellent 1998 album! Both of which, as titles, employ uppercase for the main words. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:54, 9 January 2013 (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.

The Cunt With The Bell[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. Ruslik_Zero 16:34, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete While this (and also Tcwtb) may indeed be the names under which this person is known by some of his detractors, I see no evidence that it is in any way the name by which he is commonly known. Philip Trueman (talk) 19:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • It matters not whether he is most commonly known (that is relevant only for the article title), just whether people use this redirect to find the article they are looking for. It's clear from google that the target is correct - John Westwood is the only person notably known by this name - and that people do use it (it gets 5-10 hits each month, with usage loosely correlating with Portsmouth FC fixtures). That the acronym "tcwtb" is also well-known also points to this redirect's utility. According to [1] (third section on the page) he was identified by this nickname on Finnish television commentary (I have no idea how one would go about verifying that though), again showing it is a notable nickname. Thryduulf (talk) 23:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Poor chap. Fair enough. Philip Trueman (talk) 11:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How can you be sure people searching for the term are looking for this individual instead of anybody else? Surely if there is no confirmed connection, only hearsay, then it counts as WP:OR and thus should not form the basis of a redirect. C679 22:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can never be 100% sure what people are looking for, but by whichever method you search for "the cunt with the bell" John Westwood is the pretty much the only person who comes up, and absolutely the only person with a Wikipedia article. Even if it were only hearsay, people are using the term to refer to John Westwood therefore the redirect is correct. Thryduulf (talk) 10:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I seem to have been misinterpreted, the point I was making is that just because someone did a search and the redirect points to this individual, under what rationale should it be him and nobody else? Because Wikipedia has a redirect? C679 14:50, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, sorry that was my poor phrasing. I mean that when you search the web, excluding Wikipedia, you find this person. e.g. [2], [3], [4]. There are even more if you search for "that cunt with the bell". Thryduulf (talk) 16:49, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsure I can understand why this has been nominated. But more people would know who you were talking about if you used that term than if you used his actual name. So it genuinely is a plausible search term. What the correct course of action would be under policy, I have no idea. Oldelpaso (talk) 19:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On what basis do you make the claim more people would know about it from that term? C679 22:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I once prodded nomonatied Prince Von Ahole vor Speedy deletion. It survived because it's a used term. -Koppapa (talk) 00:22, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is irrelevant whether more people know him by this nickname than his real name, all that matters is that some people use this redirect to find the article about him. Thryduulf (talk) 10:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Admittedly, it is pure OR, but I have been to numerous football matches at which Mr. Westwood was also in attendance, with bell. He is a particularly conspicuous presence, easy to pick out even in a block of a couple of thousand Portsmouth supporters. This gives him a notoriety within England's matchgoing fraternity. But he is someone known mainly by sight. On the terraces one rarely asks for the name of an opposing supporter. His incessant bell-ringing and the frequently impolite vernacular of the football terraces naturally lead to the nickname we discuss here. I see Thryduulf has given Googled examples above. Yes, they are mainly forums, but we are talking search terms here, not the name of the article. Oldelpaso (talk) 19:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The correct course of action under policy is to keep a useful redirect pointing at the correct target. Thryduulf (talk) 10:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's only useful if people using the given search term are actually looking for that individual, and there seems to be no evidence here that that is the case. C679 14:50, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See above for examples of evidence. Thryduulf (talk) 16:49, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RFD#D3, the exception of being useful not applying, as the non-neutral term is not used in multiple mainstream reliable sources. C679 19:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reliable sources are irrelevant when dealing with search terms - all that it needed is evidence that they exist, that they go to the right target, and that they are useful. There is plenty of evidence of all three of these. WP:RNEUTRAL clearly states that simply being non-neutral is not reason to delete. Thryduulf (talk) 10:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • My interpretation of RFD D3 is that "redirects that are not established terms and are unlikely to be useful, and therefore may be nominated for deletion, perhaps under deletion reason #3. However, if a redirect represents an established term that is used in multiple mainstream reliable sources, it should be kept even if non-neutral, as it will facilitate searches on such terms" means that such a redirect as is being discussed here may only be kept if it has been used in multiple mainstream reliable sources. Clearly this is not the case, as you make no effort to hide. Thanks, C679 21:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • The first bit you quote is the key, "redirects that are not established terms and are unlikely to be useful" - I have demonstrated that this is an established term and both this and the usage figures demonstrate that it is a useful search term (something that is used is by definition useful). I think the problem is that you are seeing the two parts of the guideline as comprising mutually exclusive scenarios that represent the entire range of possible redirects, whereas they are not.
          The first part says, "Offensive terms that are not established are not useful for searches and may be nominated for deletion", the second part says "Established offensive terms that appear in multiple mainstream reliable sources are useful and should be kept." We agree on both of these, however you fail to recognise that this redirect falls into the third category, "Established offensive terms that are not covered in multiple mainstream reliable sources". Some of these are useful and some are not, this is a useful search term as demonstrated and does not make it into multiple mainstream reliable sources because of the nature of the subject - mainstream reliable sources are by their nature biased against both informal language (regardless of offensiveness) and offensive language (regardless of formality), spoken language is further discriminated against by almost all written sources. Unfiltered, unedited web and newsgroup forums are one of the few places informal spoken language gets recorded, but these are not reliable sources (this is almost always a good thing, but produces problems like this when covering informal low prestige topics). This combined with the limited mainstream coverage of the target in the first place (there is sufficient depth of coverage to show his notability, but he doesn't get regular extensive mainstream exposure of the sort that would include discussion of offensive nicknames). Thryduulf (talk) 02:26, 16 January 2013 (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.

St. Louis Cardinals Cheerleaders[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. Ruslik_Zero 16:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The St. Louis Cardinals Cheerleaders are different from the Arizona Cardinals Cheerleaders. πr2 (t • c) 19:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the former St Louis Cardinals are now the current AZ Cardinals, but the cheerleaders are different as the STL cheerleaders were created by forces outside the Card Organization, never belonging to the Cardinals. The name the Big Red Line Cheerleaders belongs to KMOX radio and now the ALumni, that is why the AZ Cards Cheerleaders cannot use the name - not because they moved to AZ. The first cheerleaders for the cards were the golden girls from Mizzou also, but they still have a separate wiki page. Cox6 (talk) 19:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC) Cox6[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.

Goko[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 16:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete, the redirect is nonsense. The term 'goko' was no-where ever mentioned in relation to Kim Dae-jung. Worstbull (talk) 09:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment. Goko and Gokō (which I've added to this nomination) were both created by Article editor (talk · contribs), who is currently blocked for, among other things, creating redirects from uncommon alternative romanisations. I thus suspect that this is an example of such a romanisation - Google brings up several instances of this term appearing in combination with machine translation websites to/from Spanish but the term does not appear in the Spanish Wikipedia article for Kim Dae-jung either, so this may be a red herring. I will leave a message on the creator's talk page and will copy any comments here they wish to make while they remain blocked. Thryduulf (talk) 13:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. These appear to be the Japanese pronunciation of 後廣, his pen-name as rendered in Chinese characters. I can't imagine why anyone would use these to search for the English language article. Siuenti (talk) 19:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no evidence that these names are remotely likely to be used to search for this person on English Wikipedia. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:38, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I created the redirects, and at first I had trouble remembering what they referred to. I understand that they probably should be deleted. --Article editor (talk) 21:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC) copied here from [5] as user is blocked. Thryduulf (talk) 11:11, 8 January 2013 (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/2013_January_6&oldid=1138578914"