Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 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, 2014.

Broadway (New York City)[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 moot. The discussed page is now an article, after the undiscussed move was reverted. An RfC was opened at the talk page to resolved the issue. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 10:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is some controversy over where this link should point. I think that the current status reflects the clear primary topic, but would like to settle this through discussion.. bd2412 T 12:29, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The reason I converted the redirect into a DAB page was simple: there is more than one street in New York City named "Broadway". There is the famous Broadway that originates in Manhattan and runs through the Bronx, there are "Broadways" in Brooklyn and Queens, and there is an East Broadway and a West Broadway (not connected in any way to the plain "Broadway") in Manhattan. Having the DAB'd article point to the famous Broadway is inaccurate, although I do readily agree that most people will mean that street when they speak of "Broadway" in "New York City". Many of those people looking for the article on the famous Broadway will type "Broadway" into the search box, being unaware that there many "Broadways" across the English-speaking world, and they are then sent to a general disambiguation page. Given this, it did not seem to me to be particularly onerous to send those who type in "Broadway (New York City)" to a local disambiguation page, since the famous Broadway is only a click away. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 12:45, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you understand, though, that when you say "most people will mean that street", you are describing a clear WP:PRIMARY TOPIC? By your reasoning, we would need to move Barack Obama to Barack Obama (president), and create a disambiguation page for those who are unaware that his father shares the same name. bd2412 T 13:23, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
The difference being that the preeminence of "Broadway" as meaning the famous street should result in it being the primary target for Broadway, but it's not: as I already mentioned above, Broadway is a disambiguation page. That being the case, the famous street must have a disambiguated article name, and, as I mentioned above, "Broadway (New York City)" is inaccurate. I would have absolutely no problem if the result of this discussion were to move Broadway to Broadway (disambiguation), and then Broadway (Manhattan) to Broadway. That would make the primary topic point to the proper article. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 13:31, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment When pages are moved, care needs to be taken that associated subpages are moved as well or certain parameters in templates are specified appropriately. In this case, failing to keep Template:Attached KML/Broadway (New York City) in sync broke the route maps at the top of Broadway (Manhattan). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a redirect. The Broadway in Manhattan is clearly the primary topic for people searching for "Broadway (New York City)" - there is no limit to how many terms any article can be primary for. People looking for other streets in NYC should be directed to the dab page via a hatnote. Thryduulf (talk) 14:20, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert move of Broadway (Manhattan). Contrary to the assertion made at the time of the move, this title is not "more accurate" since the street in question actually extends into The Bronx, and two of the other "Broadways" asserted to be ambiguous (East and West) are also in Manhattan. The move broke internal links in over 1,000 other articles, and there is no point in going through them all individually when we can be highly confident that virtually all of them were intended to refer to the "famous" Broadway. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    East Broadway and West Broadway are totally unconnected roads, so it's not a case of East 42nd Street and West 42nd Street, which are the same street on either side of Fifth Avenue. It's not simply nomenclature being applied to the same street, they're more than a mile apart and don't connect in any way to Broadway. Given that, there's no way that "Broadway (Manhattan)" applies to them. As for the Bronx, yes, indeed the famous street does continue into the Bronx, and it's the same street, so one could make the case the "Broadway (Manhattan and the Bronx)" is a more accurate title. I considered that, but thought, given the preeminence of the street in Manhattan, that "Broadway (Manhattan)" was better. Again, if a consensus was to form (not here, but on Talk:Broadway (Manhattan) that Broadway (Manhattan and the Bronx) was a better choice, fine, but that says nothing about "Broadway (New York City)", which remains inaccurate for the reasons given above. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 14:46, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I had not noticed that this move had already been rejected in a move request. Reverting as against established consensus. bd2412 T 15:00, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
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.

Typo in the United States Constitution[edit]

Relisted; see: Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_January_13#Typo_in_the_United_States_Constitution. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:54, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Church of the Creator[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. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 10:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Church_of_the_creator leads to the page for a white supremacist hate group, which has been legally estopped from using that as its name. An article needs to be created for the legitimate Church of the Creator with the direct leading there instead. In addition, Church of the Creator is a legally trademarked name, to be used only by the church and not any other group(s). Bohemian Gal (talk) 03:34, 6 January 2014

  • Comment See also User talk:Church of the Creator for additional discussion of this issue. Dwpaul Talk 04:42, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create a stub or keep - Since the hate group has used the name in the past, this title should redirect here until there is an article on the real church. Once the stub is made, we can put a hatnote for the church formerly known by this name, see Creativity (religion). I'm probably not the person to create this stub, however, because after reading their website the only thing I could understand was that they are Christians. Ego White Tray (talk) 06:23, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: the former article was turned into this redirect as the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of the Creator. The topic is discussed in the target article. From a quick search of the Google News Archive [1] it looks to me as though adequate sources may exist for an article about the World Church of the Creator. —rybec 06:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a legitimate redirect based on information in the article and there is no where else for the redirect to go. If an article can be created on the World Church of the Creator that establishes notability, then it should be created and then redirect this and the alternate capitalization, Church of the creator, to that new article. Until such time as an article is created this redirect should remain. GB fan 11:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Two reasons are given for deletion, neither of which holds up. (1) I am not a lawyer, but as far as I know a legal injunction against an organisation using a particular title does not prevent other people or organisations from mentioning or recording the fact that the organisation has at some time used the title. Acknowledging that the expression has been used by an organisation does not constitute use of the expression as a name by that organisation, in violation of the trademark. In any case, the nomination seems to be based on a misunderstanding of what a redirect means. Having a redirect under the title "Church of the Creator" to an article about an organisation does not mean that "Church of the Creator" is a title of the organisation: all it means is that there is information in that article which may be of interest or use to some people searching for "Church of the Creator", and we do not have any other article with an equal or better claim to fulfil that criterion. (2) If another organisation by this name is notable enough to justify an article about it, then such an article can be created. However, as long as it isn't created, the fact that someone thinks it should be is not a reason for deleting a redirect to another article where the title is relevant. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. For better or for worse, the racist group is the best-known group by that name. Even if the other one is notable enough to support an article, which is questionable, the solution would be a {{redirect}} hatnote on the target page. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:30, 11 January 2014 (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/2014_January_6&oldid=1138579675"