Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 January 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 15[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 15, 2015.

Kirchner un speech[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. --Nyttend (talk) 22:11, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

UN would be in capitals Serten (talk) 05:04, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree and  Done. Mhhossein (talk) 05:19, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That was hasty: With your page move, the vestige Kirchner un speech became a double redirect, the RfD tag went missing, and the RfD tag at Kirchner UN speech pointed to a nonexistent section of this page.
I've done all that (here, here and here). But it would have been simpler to create a new redirect than to move the existing one. Si Trew (talk) 07:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The original article has been AFDed, does that automatically include the redirect? Serten (talk) 09:44, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the original article is deleted, all redirects leading to it should be speedily deleted.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - don't seem to be any other targets. Can be disambiged in the future if necessary, but I don't see a need to be preemptive. WilyD 10:09, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The AfD closed as merge, and the former title now redirects straight to Cristina Fernández de Kirchner. This probably should now be deleted; had the AfD closed as delete, this would've happened anyway. --BDD (talk) 18:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 03:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 20:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Kirchner un speech (search will auto deal with that if we keep the other), Keep Kirchner UN speech which seems a possible/likely search term. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. My worry is that "Kirchner" seems like a German name and "und" is the German for "and", so that "Kirchner un" would seem a reasonably likely start and then the search engine or dropdowns fill in the rest, if you are not careful. (I don't think Kirchner is German, but "Kirchner" is indeed a {{surname}} DAB which says it is of German origin; obviously "Cristina Fernández de" is not German.) Si Trew (talk) 10:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Example: "Kirchner und Koch" were a small-arms manufacturer based in Bavaria in the late 19th century. Now I just made that up, but can you see how someone might search for that and be led astray? Si Trew (talk) 10:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • WilyD, what do you think? This has been listed for over three months now! --BDD (talk) 18:36, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • My opinion ain't changed, but I'm doubtful it's worth arguing about RfD's problem is low participation, so we get this kind of forgetting about the readership discussion, but the discussion is what it is. Wikipedia is a work in progress, and getting the wrong answer today on a minor redirect won't ruin the project. WilyD 21:57, 3 February 2015 (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.

Blackbird (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 retarget to Blackbird#Songs and compositions as a {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:00, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what the best idea is for this. This redirects to The Beatles song (which is probably the primary use), but there is also a song section on Blackbird (disambiguation) Blackbird. I think either one of the following should come to pass:

This was moved by Tassedethe, who I am pinging for input as well. kelapstick(bainuu) 15:06, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, with {{R to section}}. I think Bye Bye Blackbird at the DAB should be hoist from "See Also" to "Songs and compositions" (that's what I first thought of, and was surprised not to see it listed there?). But no one here can love and understand me. Oh, what hard-luck stories they all hand me. Si Trew (talk) 15:46, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I just went bold and did it. Si Trew (talk) 15:49, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not quite sure what your position is, keep it as a redirect to the further disambiguated title (why are we redirecting (song) to (Beatles song)), or change it to link to the DAB page Blackbird with R to Section? Note I fixed my statement above, the page in question doesn't end in (disambiguation). --kelapstick(bainuu) 16:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was in two minds and that was confusing: so Retarget to anchor Blackbird (disambiguation)#song – I've added the anchor to Blackbird#Songs and compositions already, but that doesn't prejudice this discussion. Si Trew (talk) 18:28, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with the nominator; this is the only outcome which is unacceptable to me. Either the Beatles song is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Blackbird (song)" and its current title is over-precise, or it is not the primary topic, and "Blackbird (song)" should go to a dab. Extra disambiguation goes against WP:CONCISE and PRIMARYTOPIC. We wouldn't have Barack Obama redirect to Barack Obama (politician), and we wouldn't have Washington (state) redirect to Washington (U.S. state). --BDD (talk) 20:44, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But we might have Thriller (album) redirecting to Thriller (Michael Jackson album). However, I don't mind if the Beatles song goes to "Blackbird (song)". Siuenti (talk) 21:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But we do. Thriller (album) does redirect to Thriller (Michael Jackson album). Looking at the R's history, it was discussed here at RfD, and closed as Keep. Not much has changed since, or am I mistaken? Si Trew (talk) 00:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but that page being at the longer title does not necessarily make this page being at the shorter title incorrect, or vise versa. --kelapstick(bainuu) 01:17, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, it does. I think the Thriller decision is wrong too. It seems plain to me that there can be "sub-primary topics", i.e., primary topics for disambiguated terms. "Thriller (album)" is definitely one; I suppose "Blackbird (song)" is too, though I haven't looked into it. Some editors, especially those active at RM, reject this notion, hence the current titles, but many are unwilling to follow through with that idea and truly treat the former title as ambiguous. As long as the shorter titles continue to redirect to the individual album/song instead of a disambiguation page, it's a clear violation of naming conventions. Unfortunately, there hasn't been the political will to call this out at RfD, perhaps because of the large effort involved in fixing incoming links. But that's right there in WP:PRIMARYTOPIC as a good reason these pages shouldn't've been moved in the first place. </rant> --BDD (talk) 15:08, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BDD, you are preaching to the choir. I am in complete agreement that the shorter title is the correct title, or the shorter title should redirect to the DAB page not the longer title (per primary topic). My point was more that we don't use precedents or other stuff exists arguments on Wikipedia, and simply saying that Thriller is at MJ album whilst the shorter title album redirects there is not the proper way to make one's point, rather one should use a policy/guideline based arguments. As you have done.--kelapstick(bainuu) 16:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. I misread your above statement. --BDD (talk) 18:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Um if BDD says "We wouldn't have Barack Obama redirect to Barack Obama (politician)" I'm entitled to refute that by pointing out a redirect which is more similar to the current case (because of the necessity for disambiguation) and goes in the direction I am suggesting. I have made my argument by pointing out why I think readers benefit from this situation, I would like to here how people would benefit from the move BDD is suggesting. Siuenti (talk) 22:50, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If both "Blackbird (song)" and "Blackbird (Beatles song)" go to the same place, and that destination has a hatnote, it really doesn't make much difference. Readers searching for a different "Blackbird" song would still see the Beatles one first. As long as that's the case, the more WP:CONCISE term should be the page title. That isn't a fringe idea of mine; it's part of our core naming criteria. --BDD (talk) 00:22, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be clear, then, retarget to Blackbird#Songs and compositions or move Blackbird (Beatles song) over the redirect. --BDD (talk) 15:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as-is. Sorry, my logic might be hard to follow here. Per WP:SONGDAB, songs should be disambiguated with "(song)" unless further disambiguation is needed, which is the case here because there are many songs by this name and many are not covers of the Lennon-McCartney work. Therefore, "(Beatles song)" is the proper disambiguator for the article. The Beatles song is the obvious primary topic, as most Beatles songs (and especially White Album and later songs) are, so it's appropriate for "(song)" to redirect to the Beatles song article, with a hatnote targeting to the dab page. (See Hurricane (song) for an example, or see Talk:Yesterday (Beatles song) for a controversial one.) I'm not so sure that the dab page should be at Blackbird without (disambiguation) but it's done so let it be. Ivanvector (talk) 18:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ivanvector, there's the rub. What does "Use further disambiguation if needed" mean? Some editors interpret this to mean whenever there's more than one song in existence with the same title. Others, like me, take this in the context of the whole disambiguation guideline—most importantly for these purposes, that's including the primary topic. So if there's a song that's "highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term", why should it matter if "that term" already has a qualifier like (song)? I admit that there's no explicit convention for this idea of "sub-primary topic", but neither is there any official guidance contradicting it. --BDD (talk) 14:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As you said, I interpret the guideline to mean "whenever there are multiple songs with the same title", without regard to primary topic, based on the example given in the guideline and on apparent precedent. I also interpret it to mean "whenever a song title might be confused with some other article", for example Helter Skelter (song) could quite possibly be considered primary for "Helter Skelter" but it is disambiguated anyway, and Helter Skelter is a dab page. And it makes sense to me that every song by a certain title be disambiguated by the artist if there are multiples, even if one is the primary topic. The primary topic gets the (song) page redirected to it, or in other cases where none of the songs is primary then the (song) redirect goes to a "Music" section of a dab page (I think Yesterday (song) is like this currently, although it's up for debate and may have changed by the time you read this). I think that makes it easier for maintenance as well - if a song is no longer the primary topic or a different song becomes the primary topic then it's just a matter of retargeting the redirect, rather than a series of kludgey page moves. I don't think that it necessarily contradicts the disambiguation guideline or the concise titles guideline, or if it does then it's a good case for ignoring those guidelines. Ivanvector (talk) 15:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Blackbird#Songs and compositions as an {{R to disambiguation}}, the discussion here seems to indicate that there is some confusion/uncertainty over what the primary topic is so R to disambig is the best solution. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think there's any confusion there. I think consensus here is that the Beatles song is the primary song topic, but not the primary topic overall. Do other editors think that's accurate? Ivanvector (talk) 19:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore, that is move Blackbird (Beatles song) over the redirect. That has been the status quo since the article was created in March 2005, and there are a number of articles which expect Blackbird (song) to go straight to the Beatles song. The Beatles song is primary, so that has to be the target. There is no need to further disambiguate per precise. We have precise to save readers and editors from having to type unnecessary words. By all means have Blackbird (Beatles song) and Blackbird (The Beatles song) redirect to Blackbird (song) in case someone tries that as an initial search, but let's keep disambiguation titles as crisp and easy to use and follow as possible, and provide some consistency for readers and editors so they know what to type. We have guidelines, let's follow them. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Observation - to my point somewhere above and for editors who may be interested, the discussion on the proper article title for the Beatles' song "Yesterday" has concluded with a result that the article is located at Yesterday (Beatles song). The redirect Yesterday (song) was retargeted there, but I'm not sure that happened as a result of the discussion. Ivanvector (talk) 23:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for noticing this. I've reverted that retargeting. The issue has been too contentious in the past and should be discussed at RfD if it's going to be retargeted. --BDD (talk) 14:17, 23 January 2015 (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 Islamic State (Caliphate)[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. There is consensus the current targeting is wrong. A search result seems the most broadly supported outcome over retargetting Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:49, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

highly POV redirect for deletion Legacypac (talk) 11:49, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Islamic State. The lede has a concise description of its meaning in the modern sense, in the second para. But even if kept, Ion't see how it's POV: the first sentence of caliphate defines it as "a form of Islamic political-religious leadership", which seems fairly NPOV. (And redirects don't have to be neutral, anyway: they just have not to be misleading). Si Trew (talk) 14:35, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Let me address these all together if possible. The name "Islamic State" was chosen by the terrorist group to say they are the worldwide rulers of all Muslims (see Worldwide caliphate and all governments are void when they arrive. The IS name has been rejected by the international community. The UN's BK Moon called them the Un-Islamic Non-State. The French use DAESH - an acronym equal to ISIL. Obama said we should not call them the Islamic State in a national speech globally reported. ISIL threatens to cut out the tongues of anyone who refuses to use Islamic State. Wikipedia went through multiple debates and repeatedly rejected Islamic State and variations both for the page name and through RfCs for all references to the group unless the name was qualified. A page move request moratorium was imposed (see top of the ISIL talk page for moves and details. So please don't redirect any of these to Islamic State which is itself redirected to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant already. Please deleted the ones I've nominated for deletion unless a really good reason can be found for keeping them-like the redirect gets a lot of traffic or something. Legacypac (talk) 19:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I should love to take these en masse, but they have to be taken individually:
  1. You have listed them individually. (You can combine them, and have in the past.)
  2. Some have different merits from others.
  3. You don't provide any evidence for your claims. If it has had RfC, move discussions, etc, refer us to them. Habeas Corpus and all that.
If you say "The French use DAESH" you might, for example, give fr:DAESH – which I see having checked does not exist, although rationalwiki.org/wiki/Daesh says it is "known throughout the Arabic world by that name" – so that I dispute the claim that the French, or at least the French-language Wikipédia – call it that. Perhaps you got that idea from this article:
  • "France says the name ISIS is offensive, will call it Daesh instead". The Week. 17 September 2014. Retrieved 5 January 2015. The name Daesh, according to France24, is a "loose acronym" for "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" (al-Dawla al-Islamiya al-Iraq al-Sham). The name is commonly used by enemies of ISIS, and it also has many negative undertones, as Daesh sounds similar to the Arabic words Daes ("one who crushes something underfoot") and Dahes ("one who sows discord")
So let's follow what France24 says:
  • "French govt to use Arabic 'Daesh' for Islamic State group". France24. 18 September 2014. Retrieved 5 January 2015. Last week, Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius asked journalists and media organisations to do the same. He said: "This is a terrorist group and not a state. I do not recommend using the term Islamic State because it blurs the lines between Islam, Muslims and Islamists. The Arabs call it 'Daesh' and I will be calling them the 'Daesh cutthroats'." His first press release using the name was issued on Monday.
So let's see what his press release linked in that quote says:
He has used "Daesh", or at least his copywriters have, not "DAESH" (which is redlink at EN:WP as I write this, but I bet not for long: that caps is used at he target, and would be a sensible {{R from other capitalization}}, but let's not add more salt to the fire.)
fr:Daesh redirects to fr:État_islamique_(organisation), which is Interwiki linked to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. fr:DAESH is redlink. Apparently nobody of note calls it DAESH.
As for:

don't redirect any of these to Islamic State which is itself redirected to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant already

The briefest of glances shows that Islamic State is not a redirect to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, it is an article that does not even mention "Levant" beyond the hatnote directing to that target, nor "ISIL" at all. I read the top of the ISIL talk page and that is why I said it had a moratorium, I read through the articles listed on that moratorium and this, actually, is not one of them. I agree with your general sentiment that a lot of these are POV, but it is on you to show it. Even if they were, WP:RNEUTRAL kicks in: you need to show (or at least plausibly argue) that they are misleading or hinder a search. Si Trew (talk) 21:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to caliphate, since a caliphate is "The Islamic state", as there should be only one caliph at any one time, and it is "The" state for the Islamic world. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 09:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This could refer to the concept of Islamic state just as easily as it could a Caliphate. It's an X or Y situation. "The Islamic State (Caliphate)" is an unlikely search term, and any reader using it would be better served by search results. --BDD (talk) 15:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Delete Google turns up a million entries so many people just might search this way. A redirect doesn't mean the phrase is the right one. Indeed it may mean just the opposite, thus the redirect. Jason from nyc (talk) 16:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How are you searching? "the islamic state caliphate" only returns 35,300 hits, shrinking to 31,200 with a -wikipedia operator. --BDD (talk) 18:33, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected. After looking at a wiki search result, I believe it is hard to tell which choice the reader wants -- search result is better than a redirect. Jason from nyc (talk) 22:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:51, 15 January 2015 (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.

Andrew Lipsitz[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. The AfD was closed as merge, but no merge was carried out. Any editor interested in doing so may get in touch with me. --BDD (talk) 14:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RDELETE reason #10: the target article contains no mention of the named person. (Redirect was created after a deletion discussion in 2010.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:20, 15 January 2015 (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.

Aušra[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. --BDD (talk) 14:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete mojibake. Gorobay (talk) 16:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment the "(r)" and accent stripped forms were created by Eubot (talk · contribs) and are typo-formatted mojibake, so aren't even real mojibake, and are much worse, as they aren't even real. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 05:23, 16 January 2015 (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.

Audiovisual Communicators, Inc.[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. --BDD (talk) 14:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The page was deleted before as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Audiovisual Communicators, Inc. Well, is it OK for the page to be redirected to DWRX? It think it's not. The radio network also owns & operates DYBT & DXBT. The page is also one of the favorite targets of Bertrand101 so it should be salted if deleted (see Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Bertrand101). theenjay36 07:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Admin comment No comment as to whether it should be deleted (etc) or not but whatever the outcome I'd prefer it not be protected per WP:BEANS. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per consensus at Afd. Creating a redirect to one of its stations when we have articles on several doesn't make any sense. None is the primary topic, and I don't think disambiguation is a good solution. Delete per IAR if you like. Not sure what to do about salting - I'm inclined to say no per WP:DENY but if a known LTA is going to make work recreating it then it might be better to salt - I'm not sure which would be the bigger troll cookie, so we might as well make it easy on ourselves. Ivanvector (talk) 20:12, 16 January 2015 (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/2015_January_15&oldid=1077607036"