Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 June 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 17[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 17, 2013

Guerrilla Jiu-Jitsu[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 July 10#Guerrilla Jiu-Jitsu

Ahmed Ziauddin[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. JohnCD (talk) 16:20, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion for this article was delete not redirect. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Fresh content was added to the target of the redirect after the AfDs. Crtew (talk) 09:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A new section to the above article highlights Ziuddin's role in the event. 2012 ICT Skype controversy#Ahmed Ziauddin
As per the 2 AfD discussions, most contributors for deletion said he was a 1E, and the redirect was put up in that spirit and directed to that 1E section in event articel. The other argument for keep was that he was a significant player in this event. He is also mentioned and linked in multiple articles throughout WP that all have to do with the same event.
The above user is the nominator of the both attempts to delete his entry and seems bent on expunging.
WP is not censored. (reedited for clarity) Crtew (talk) 04:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, he has a section in the target article. Cavarrone 05:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think you misunderstood the AfD. No one actually argued a redirect was inappropriate, and given that the closer gave BLP1E as the rationale, there's little reason to think a redirect would be a runaround. I'll contact that closing admin to see if he wants to comment here. --BDD (talk) 22:49, 18 June 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.

I Got This Feeling (Baby Bumps song)[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. Tikiwont (talk) 12:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This song appears to sample the target song, but it's not mentioned anywhere on the target article, so this is unhelpful and confusing as a redirect. BDD (talk) 23:24, 17 June 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.

Store robbery[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 robbery ~Crazytales (talk) (edits) 20:00, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Newly created, incorrect link by the creator of multiple absurd redirects. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:08, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget redirect to simply robbery. Someone might search for such, however what it is currently linked to is not right. 4.238.1.127 (talk) 03:02, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Why? Wouldn't the search result be more productive than the redirect? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per 4.238.1.127. An article is more useful than search results, particularly as the latter do not display for all methods of navigation (e.g. a user may be invited to create a page, or simply told the article does not exist) and can not be relied upon to be consistent. Thryduulf (talk) 11:15, 10 July 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.

Bank burglary[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. While by a vote count this was 2:1 in favour of deletion, BDD's arguments in favour of keeping the redirect were stronger. Particularly the comment "Bank robbery actually does explain the distinction between robbery and burglary" indicates that there is little scope for confusion and that someone searching on this term will find the information they are looking for in the target article. Thryduulf (talk) 11:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Technically incorrect, improbable, newly created, redirect by a known creator of absurd redirects. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Plausible search term. I understand there's a legal distinction between burglary and robbery, but it doesn't really exist in common usage. --BDD (talk) 23:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    But nobody uses the term "bank burglary"; [[WP:COMMONNAME|common usage]] is not helpful. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The first ten google hits for "bank burglary" (at least, in my localization) are accurate; they were describing burglary, not robbery. There would need to be some likelihood of the incorrect usage, for this redirect to be appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But do you think it likely that bank burglary is ever going to have its own article? If not, wouldn't you say a reader who does search for "bank burglary" will have his or her needs at least partially served by the target article? --BDD (talk) 00:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a redirect to burglary, instead of deleting. That is, if anyone other than Voortle, who has more deleted edits than undeleted edits, thinks it's a plausible search key. As it stands, it almost qualifies for {{db-redirmisnomer}}. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, wouldn't the search result be more helpful than the redirect? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not a bad thought, Arthur, but I checked the search results for the term, and they don't seem too helpful. By contrast, Bank robbery actually does explain the distinction between robbery and burglary, and did so before this redirect existed. So as such, I'd only be comfortable with deleting per WP:REDLINK—i.e., if there was a reasonable expectation of a separate article on bank burglary. I don't think there is. --BDD (talk) 18:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a reasonable search term, if it did not exist the search screen would give better choices than any single target. --Bejnar (talk) 06:14, 20 June 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.

Disability swimming[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 change the status quo. There are several things proposed below - deletion or retargeting of the redirect and/or moving one or more pages. There was no consensus for any of the proposals. Thryduulf (talk) 11:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Memasa has contended that there is something unique about "Disability swimming" in comparison to "Paralympic swimming". I don't know exactly what the editor contends, but the editor wanted a discussion like this opened. ViperSnake151  Talk  14:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See talk page for more details. Thanks to ViperSnake151 for nominating this. If you need more argumentation, let me know. Memasa (talk) 15:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since English isn't my mother tongue there might be some differences in terminology which I haven't realized. Memasa (talk) 15:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But disability swimming on a general level would deserve its own article, I think Memasa (talk) 15:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But if paralympic swimming and disability swimming are synonymous, I have to say it's a bit misleading to say the least. Memasa (talk) 16:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They are not. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:09, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If they happen to be synonymous Paralympic swimming should, in my opinion, be renamed as Disability swimming. But I remind you again that English isn't my first language. Memasa (talk) 16:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Disability swimming is, for all practical purpose, Paralympic swimming. The redirect should stand unless enough reliable sources are found describing it simply as Disability Swimming (or something similar). GenQuest "Talk to Me" 17:07, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Paralympic swimming makes me think of Swimming at the Summer Paralympics which isn't the purpose. But maybe it's just me. Memasa (talk) 17:37, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If this is the case not all paralympic swimmers are paralympians. Quite contradictory. Memasa (talk) 18:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Only because you are confusing the IPC with the Paralympic Games. The IPC runs the Paralympics, but it is also the regulatory body for some (but not all) Paralympic sports. Hence we have IPC Swimming World Championships. This means swimming conducted under the IPC's rules of the sport, in the IPC's role as a governing body. This mainly pertains to classification. So yes, not all paralympic swimmers are paralympians. Not contradictory at all. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:09, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know this isn't a reliable source for the term: List of IPC world records in swimming. Memasa (talk) 18:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All three projects have been notified. Memasa (talk) 16:20, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know why paralympic swimming is called paralympic swimming. But is it the best and only choice, that is the question? Memasa (talk) 16:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral There does not seem to be enough RS that identifies the event in any other way (at least in the US). GenQuest "Talk to Me" 16:18, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I put a note on all three talk pages of these articles mentioned above. Memasa (talk) 11:51, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, I have under a hundred edits here on English Wikipedia, and I happened to miss the status. (12 645 edits on Finnish Wikipedia, if anyone's interested ;) Memasa (talk) 13:19, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not in this country. All your links are from the United Kingdom. The term "disability swimming" or "disability skiing" is never used here. [7] [8] The current article layout is very simple: Paralympic alpine skiing is about the sport at the Paralympics, but also at the IPC World Championships; Alpine skiing at the Winter Paralympics is about the events at the Winter Paralympics. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is adapted swimming (or adapted [any other sport]) common English? In what context is it used? Memasa (talk) 14:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The term "Adapted" is sometimes used in the United States to avoid "Disability", which is disliked. However, it has not caught on elsewhere. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:42, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point. But no one would seriously consider renaming the article about disability. Or am I wrong?
This is a bit off-topic: Here in Finland we have a few politically correct (in this case good) loanwords for "disability" and "disabled", but those terms aren't widely used by the general populace. The terms "disability" (vammaisuus) and "disabled" (vammainen) are still used in formal language, and I don't think that's going to change in my lifetime. Memasa (talk) 20:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, what you call paralympic swimming is in Finnish vammaisuinti which translates to "disability swimming". "Paralympiauinti" (translation: Paralympic swimming) would certainly refer to swimming at the paralympics. Memasa (talk) 21:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Disability sport and Paralympic sport are not the same thing. Picture renaming Track and field -> Olympic track and field. You see the problem? Not all track and field is by definition played at the Olympic level, nor governed by the recognised sport Olympuc athletic sport federation. Paralympic swimming does not include the Special Olympics, hearing impaired swimming and other types of disability swimming outside the Paralympic movement. Paralympic sport is a subset of disability sport, no synomous with it. --LauraHale (talk) 10:09, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose agree with what LauraHale has stated, in fact I couldn't have said it any better. Bidgee (talk) 15:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose agree with LauraHale. Memasa (talk) 20:02, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The original proposer has posted an Oppose !Vote - does that not mean this proposal is effectively withdrawn? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:10, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I opposed ItsZippy's suggestion. Memasa (talk) 14:02, 6 July 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_June_17&oldid=1166568828"