Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 January 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 22[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 22, 2015.

Journal of Southern History[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) 19:07, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RFD#DELETE point 10. The JSH is a publication of the SHA, but as a significant academic journal in the field, it's likely to be notable, and having it as a redirect discourages creation of an article. Currently, its only appearance in the target article is one sentence, The SHA publishes the Journal of Southern History. Readers don't particularly benefit from this redirect. Nyttend (talk) 18:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete to encourage article creation. Of course, any knowledgeable editor is free to expand this redirect right now. --Lenticel (talk) 00:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I might have an idea for making the article, but am not sure if it is Southern United States or Australia, yet. Si Trew (talk) 13:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Southern us, e.g. Weber, Jennifer L. "The Fishing Creek Confederacy". 80 (2). Rice University. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
Where do we stand on university publications as RS? I guess they are aren't they? Si Trew (talk) 13:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They can be, and often are, but of course there can be exceptions. This journal covers the Southern US. Nyttend (talk) 02:18, 24 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 mad dog of the Middle East[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. --BDD (talk) 19:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

blatant POV-pushing. No inward links SamuelTheGhost (talk) 17:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Further comment. The purpose of redirects is to allow wikipedia users, and editors of other articles, to use their preferred forms of words to access an article. Thus alternative spellings of a name are a prime example (although there are insanely many in this case), or a title instead of a name. Nobody wanting to access the Gaddafi article would type "The mad dog ... " into the search box, and I can only assume that whoever created this redirect was trying to make a point. This is not hte place to do so. Guide of the Revolution should also be removed, as should King of Kings Muammar al-Gaddafi of Africa. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 23:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I think "Guide of the Revolution" should go to Karl Marx, if it goes anywhere. The King of Kings as a ?self-styled name is a bit odd, since Libya was not a kingdom even under Gaddafi's rule, so is that just an English transliteration? I found one RS from The Grauniad:
But that itself says it was self-styled. The rest I find are not RS, are youtube and so on. Others probably could do better on the RS. Si Trew (talk) 09:39, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and perhaps aim at section "International Pariah" and "Mad Dog of the Middle East": 1981–86 where the phrase is discussed. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 19:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I assumed that it was vandalism or blatant POV-pushing, but as this was the US President's reference to Qaddafi at an important point in US-Libyan relations, it's quite a reasonable redirect. If you disagree with having it as a redirect, you ought to question whether it should be a section header in Qaddafi's article. Nyttend (talk) 20:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in Reagan's article says so, and nothing at target either. Here are a couple:
neither of these say "the mad dog", only "mad dog". The "the" is unnecessary and against WP:TITLE. Since the topic is not mentioned at the target, I see no reason to keep it, and no reasons on the RfD list of reasons to keep have been stated. Si Trew (talk) 21:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, one of them does actually say "the" in the title. Hoist with my own petard there, I think. Si Trew (talk) 21:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also questioning why Nyttend deliberately used the 'Q' spelling where presumably the 'G' spelling has consensus for Gaddaffi. My arabic is not brilliant but it is a back glottal sibbilant semi vowel that cannot be represented accurately in English typography, Gh, Sh, and Kh being the hardest for a non arabic speaker, so tend to get spelled various ways in translieration. Si Trew (talk)
Because that's how I typically write the name. Please read your final clause: it tends to get spelled different ways in transliteration. Why do you care? Nyttend (talk) 23:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because the target is "G" and you said "Q" even when the target is presented to you with a "G", so I wondered why, it could seem a a bit provovative deliberately to change the spelling when discussing it, so I questioned it. No problem, that was all it was. Si Trew (talk) 09:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That really is a bit odd, to say "please read your final clause". I read it when I wrote it. Whatever the way you usually write it, Wikipedia writes it with a G. Si Trew (talk) 09:29, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm well aware of that. Let me be clear: I'm not trying to force anyone else to change his spelling, as such attempts are not welcome. Nyttend (talk) 02:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I should prefer if the nominater put updates and responses in chronological order, but since they are where they are, I have responded where they stand. Si Trew (talk) 11:44, 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.

Lips Are Movin (Music video)[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 retargeted to Lips Are Movin (music video) by non-admin Si Trew (talk) 12:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This R from Capitalization is not needed and points to the wrong page. MaRAno FAN 07:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think this can be 'speedy close' if anyone agrees, but I am hesitant to do it myself. I think it was just an oversight when the article was split out from a section, not to catch this R. Si Trew (talk) 08:41, 22 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_22&oldid=1037877616"