Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 October 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 2[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 2, 2013.

List of Liv and Maddie (TV series) episodes[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 19:42, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article contents before redirect were unattributed copies of a section of Liv and Maddie. Another article List of Liv and Maddie episodes was created earlier, is the proper name for this topic, was also an unattributed copy of the same source and is now currently tagged {{R with possibilities}} and {{R to section}} to the copied source material. The redirect with the disambiguation has no inbound links, is not needed and is not a likely search destination. Bot keeps bypassing the R with possibilities target as well. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:32, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Liv and Maddie for now notwithstanding WP:RWP since there is no benefit with the double redirect. This was previously an article which the nominator redirected as was List of Liv and Maddie episodes and there seems to be some sort of edit dispute over how the information is best organised. RFD is not a good forum for resolving such disagreements, particularly when there is a significant history. The best action in my view would be to Restore article and take to AFD where the implications can be thrashed out and the best structure determined. However, since we are here, we may as well target at the prime target. The Whispering Wind (talk) 14:16, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The edit issue at List of Liv and Maddie episodes is whether or not a split should occur now – it is inevitable that it will at some time thus the R with possibilities on the proper title. This issue here is if this particular redirect should exist. The significant history is all unattributed copies of a section of the main article so there is no reason to retain a history of plagiarism, the original editors have the required attributions in the source article. This redirect is not appropriate for AFD and the delete discussion belongs here. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:13, 3 October 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.

Government shutdown[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 Speedily closed as this is now a disambiguation page rather than a redirect, and there seems to be unanimous agreement with this solution.  Sandstein  09:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Internet is not America. Don't other countries have government shutdowns? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 07:28, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as (now) a disambiguation page. This is a likely search term, and there are several articles that match the title - the right thing to do is list them all. Re your question, I've never heard of a government shutdown before this one, and according to the evidence it seems to be a US thing only - other countries automatically extend the previous year's budget when there's a disagreement (either that, or the government is dismantled), instead of tying the whole governments functioning to it. Also, merge United States federal government shutdown here. Diego (talk) 14:47, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: as this is a hot topic, I've boldly put a disambiguation-set index page in place in order to provide useful content for readers during the discussion. Diego (talk) 14:54, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And I hardly think a single shutdown in Minnesota or New Jersey justifies redirecting a clear primary topic to a disambiguation page. Disambiguation can be sorted in a hatnote just as neatly. Keep as redirect. --SchutteGod (talk) 15:04, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, which one is the "clear primary topic"? The 1995 and 1996 Clinton ones? The current crisis? or the general concept? I don't see why any of them could be considered more likely than the others. (Great sources, BTW). Diego (talk) 15:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The general concept of course. Why would an article about a single incident be a primary topic, especially when it clearly falls under the umbrella of government shutdown in the United States? --SchutteGod (talk) 16:18, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because, being a recent and notorious event, people may be interested in learning details about it, instead of (or in addition to) the general concept? Note that I didn't say that the current incident should be primary; rather, that both the incident and the general concept are equaly likely, thus making neither of them primary, thus requiring disambiguation. Diego (talk) 16:29, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can always hatnote links to current events (i.e., at the top of Government shutdowns in the US: For the recent federal government shutdown, see [ARTICLE NAME]), except I would note that the current shutdown is not going to be in the news forever...in a few weeks it won't matter. --SchutteGod 76.171.231.104 (talk) 20:15, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually yeah, it kind of is. Other countries do not have government shutdowns. --SchutteGod (talk) 16:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as disambiguation page. This seems the best solution, listing various government shutdowns which the reader might be looking for. Anyone who wants to develop it into an article is free to do so, but it would be hard to avoid duplicating the content at Government shutdown in the United States, so it's probably best left as a simple disambiguation page. Robofish (talk) 01:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as disambiguation page seems a useful and pragmatic solution. The Whispering Wind (talk) 14:23, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can I ask what is "useful" or "pragmatic" about keeping a superfluous disambiguation page where all the items listed already fall under the umbrella article Government shutdown in the United States? Same question for Robofish. If an article about "Government shutdown" would probably just end up duplicating "Government shutdown in the United States", why do we need a disambiguation page for it? If the term is not ambiguous then it very well doesn't need disambiguation, does it? --SchutteGod (talk) 16:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The USA does not own the term "Government shutdown". If, for example, the government of Tuvalu has a government shutdown in the near future, then we could add a link to Government shutdown in Tuvalu in 2013 on the Government shutdown page. Secondly, there is already a link to 2006 Puerto Rico budget crisis on the Government shutdown page, and Puerto Rico may not be considered by some to be part of the US. Gfcvoice (talk) 18:30, 3 October 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.

Mongolism[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 dabify. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 12:07, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is an obsolete term for Down Syndrome rarely used anymore, not to mention being racially offensive. Suggest a retarget to Mongoloid or Pan-Mongolism. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:49, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Pan-Mongolism. --Lenticel (talk) 05:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate, still a likely search term. Siuenti (talk) 19:28, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate - outdated and offensive but used in many older medical papers and other reliable sources. It is an entirely plausible search term. Redirects are value-free and are there solely to help the reader find the information they are seeking. The Whispering Wind (talk) 20:42, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as disambiguation page. I'm the one who added the current hatnote to Down syndrome, but I hadn't thought about other possible uses; since there are more than two, and no overwhelmingly clear primary use, a disambiguation page is the best solution. Robofish (talk) 01:18, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – disambiguate. Only two one link that really needs to be dabbed. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 16:41, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
     Got it. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 13:32, 5 October 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_October_2&oldid=1138265689"