Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 October 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 27[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 27, 2015.

Eastmost Peninsula is the Secret[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) 17:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Goes unmentioned in the (ideal) target article at The Legend of Zelda (1986 video game). Doesn't appear to be a likely search term--even if it were, there is at least one other wiki covering the content in detail. Izno (talk) 23:14, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all as WP:RFD#D2 confusing. Is "Eastmost" even a word? "Easternmost" surely. Si Trew (talk) 07:28, 28 October 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.

Mormon Cult[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 Criticism of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints suffers from the same plight as Criticism of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, in the sense that it is specifically about one denomination of Mormonism. That being said: the criticism article goes into more detail about the idea of this specific denomination as a cult, so it seems to be a better target of the two, and better than a no consensus closure where the target would remain the same. It also somewhat addresses the concerns expressed by those with a preference of deletion. (non-admin closure) —Godsy(TALKCONT) 18:43, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RNEUTRAL and WP:R#D3. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints isn't a "cult" and the article doesn't describe and/or source the religion in this manner. "Cult" can be seen as a disparaging and pejorative term and should only be applied to actual cults. -- Tavix (talk) 01:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:R#D3 --Lenticel (talk) 01:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete LDS isn't the only Mormon denomination, and there being several cult-like ones (just as in any other branch of Christianity) so there is no target for this -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 04:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Mormon fundamentalism. Popular or scholarly references to "Mormon cults" would probably be referring to a Mormon fundamentalist group. Nothing is labeled a "cult" at that article, but that's probably as it should be, since this is specifically listed as one of our words to avoid. I think it's a likely enough search term. Tag with {{R from non-neutral name}}. --BDD (talk) 14:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or weak retarget to Criticism of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, per WP:RNEUTRAL mostly. It's well documented that established North American Christians viewed early Mormons as a cult, and there are several anti-cult and "cult watch" organizations which continue to apply this label to the LDS church to this day. It's a very likely search term. The label applies to the church and not to a particular fundamentalist sub-group within it, as far as I can tell, but I suggested the Criticism article because it goes into more detail about the views of LDS as a cult. I strongly oppose deletion. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:00, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's something to consider. It's definitely not just the LDS Church that gets labelled a cult, and I'd say that today, the term is more likely to be used for a Mormon fundamentalist group. So we lose something by retargeting to either of our proposed options. It's not a good candidate for disambiguation. Anti-Mormonism, perhaps? A lot of that deals with the LDS Church, and doesn't really refer to fundamentalist groups specifically. --BDD (talk) 16:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not a very good target, since the LDS Church isn't the only Mormon denomination, and isn't the only one having been called a cult either. For instance, the most recent highly prominent example is the main branch of the FLDS Church [1] which is not the LDS Church -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've posted a notification at WikiProject Christianity's noticeboard. I considered notifying the LDS project specifically, but this seemed like a more neutral way to solicit comments. --BDD (talk) 16:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or change to index page. It is unfortunate but true that the LDS church probably isn't the only group within broader Mormonism to be called a cult, and to indicate otherwise would be OR and a violation of policy. Alternatively, I suppose, the page could be turned into a broad article on criticism of all Mormon groups with maybe the most significant summary section being a discussion of the criticism of the LDS church. John Carter (talk) 16:21, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or retarget per Ivanvector. —⁠烏⁠Γ (kaw), 18:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please note that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS) is not the only Mormon church/sect/denomination, merely the largest. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or retarget per Ivanvector. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 23:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 18:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or retarget I created this, but on second thought, it's not unambiguously a (very very non-neutral) term for the LDS Church. Someone who uses it could be referring to Mormonism in general, or one of the fundamentalist Mormon denominations. Now, being non-neutral is not a reason to delete this (at least not in and of itself). As WP:RNEUTRAL says, "In most cases, non-neutral but verifiable redirects should point to neutrally titled articles about the subject of the term", and Google has has 66,500 results for "Mormon Cult" -wikipedia. However, lack of a good target certainly is a reason to delete a redirect. A good target might be a list of fundamentalist Mormon denominations. A reader looking up "Mormon cult" (especially the plural form: "Mormon cults") is much more likely looking for that then for the LDS church.
On a related note, the nominator is correct that Wilipedia must not refer to the LDS church as a cult (that would be an extreme violation of the NPOV policy). However I would go further then to say that the word "cult" should only be applied to actual cults. I would say that Wikipedia should rarely, if ever be calling religious organizations cults. It is not Wikipedia's place to say what is and isn't a cult. This redirect is not Wikipedia (or myself) calling the LDS Church (or whatever this redirect ends up targeting) a cult, and should not be interpreted that way. All this redirect does is say "Mormon Cult? Oh, you mean the LDS Church. Here's the article you were looking for". NPOV applies to Wikipedia itself, it does not apply to Wikipedia's readers. The reader is free to look up articles using a non-neural or offensive term, and (as long as it isn't something ridiculous like "Joe Bloggs is a Loser"), we should send him to the article he is looking for. This is not a matter of what is and isn't an actual cult, it's not Wikipedia's place to decide that. This is a matter directing the reader to the article he's looking for. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 13:24, 8 November 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.

Digdogger[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) 17:40, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This may be a plausible search term, but its usage is nil in any of the potential targets; its most relevant potential target would be recurring enemies in The Legend of Zelda series, but it only appears twice in the various TLoZ media, which I suspect leaves it out of scope for that page. Izno (talk) 18:29, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - The topic is obscure even within the specific world of the games, and I feel like the redirect should just be removed. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:13, 28 October 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.

Corporations funding politicians[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 Corporate donations#Political donations. --BDD (talk) 17:21, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletestruck Si Trew (talk) 15:08, 29 October 2015 (UTC) as WP:RFD#D2, confusing. Not at target. Not used anywhere, stats at noise level (about one every four days). Si Trew (talk) 12:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But it also links to articles about campaign finance rules for specific jurisdictions, some of which discuss corporate campaign contributions in depth. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:42, 27 October 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.

Citizens United ruling[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 snow keep. Instead of piling on, I'm just going to close this because it seems obvious that there's not going to be a "delete" consensus. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 19:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Citizens United ruling was only used in two articles, and Citizens United case in one. In those cases I have changed to point directly to the target by writing "in Citizens United v. FEC" instead of "in the Citizens United case/ruling", which is both more specific and avoids the need for these redirects, which were essentially serving as (needless) pipes. I'm aware of WP:NOTBROKEN, but there is no need for a redirect that is used specifically to make something vaguer, it would have been better to pipe it, if for some reason using the actual short name of the case is considered too revealing.

Stats are a little above bot noise level (1.5 a day, sometimes as much as 5 a day) but presumably that's partly/mostly because of the links in the article and I'd expect that to fall even if these are kept, so if kept perhaps we can revisit these in a month or two. I've not got a very strong case here, but just feel this goes against the spirit of WP:TITLE. Si Trew (talk) 07:37, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as a plausible search term for those who might not know their legal opponent's correct name. —⁠烏⁠Γ (kaw), 07:55, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Citizens United on its own will get them there. Si Trew (talk) 07:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If the people who decided that want to mislead readers, then that's on them; for these particular redirects, however, I see no reason not to have them for clarity - speaking as someone who has never heard of them or the case before this, it seems as if someone typing in "Citizens United" should expect the organization, and someone typing in "Citizens United case" should expect the case. —⁠烏⁠Γ (kaw), 08:08, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it does seem bizarre to have the bare "#Citizens United" as the redirect and the organization needing to be disambiguated in its title. However, that does seem to have got consensus, if not broad consensus. Perhaps we should revisit that, but it was not until today that it came here to RfD. I feel that we can't do too much about these until we have consensus on what to do with Citizens United itself, then they kinda fall out of our consensus decision for that.
Trew veers off topic discussing the court decision rather than the redirect itself

I hadn't heard of it either, and it seems a bizarre ruling since the whole point of a corporation is that it is not a "natural person". In A. P. Herbert's Uncommon Law, "What is a Corporation"? his protagonist Albert Haddock, an author, turns himself into a corporation so that his copyright will never expire, because a company never dies (unless it is wound up). This Supreme Court's decision is batty, but there it is. Who was it who said "How can you expect a corporation to have a conscience, when it has no soul to be saved nor body to be kicked?". To be clear: I am not a lawyer. Si Trew (talk) 08:26, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was Edward Thurlow, 1st Baron Thurlow apparently (or nearly, I slightly misquoted): at Corporate veil in the United Kingdom, and at WikiQuote. Si Trew (talk) 08:35, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Si Trew (talk) 08:31, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm happy to combine this with #Citizens United case, below,done. but was undecided if that would be A Good ThingTM. Si Trew (talk) 07:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That would make things more convenient, so I've done it. Feel free to reformat your rationale. —⁠烏⁠Γ (kaw), 08:08, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I have done so. I hope in doing so I haven't changed the meaning of my proposal, nor of your response to it. Si Trew (talk) 08:19, 27 October 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.

Murray Hill 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 procedural close as withdrawn by nominator (probably not best practice but nobody else has commented, so this is just tidying my own mess) Si Trew (talk) 12:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RFD#D2 confusing. Not at target. Si Trew (talk) 07:27, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've marked {{old rfd}} on the talk page, and am going to close it myself before there are any other comments, can always be reopened if desired. Si Trew (talk) 08:58, 27 October 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.

Citizens United[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 speedy keep. This needs to be closed before it gets further out of hand, and it's starting to WP:SNOW anyway. The previous discussion that was closed yesterday provided consensus that this redirect isn't going anywhere. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 19:37, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect must either become a disambiguation page or be retargeted to Citizens United (organization). Or maybe the organization shall take over the base title as primary topic. (My bad.) George Ho (talk) 03:21, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why "must" it? This was considered and rejected here, just last month. I agree with that outcome. NW (Talk) 03:36, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I struck out other suggestion, NW. Is that fine? George Ho (talk) 03:46, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
iThat discussion was actually just closed the same day as this RFD and the persons that closed it recommended that the redirect should remain where it is.--69.157.253.134 (talk) 04:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree, it's weird. Move Citizens United (organization) over Citizens United and hatnote to Citizens United v. FEC. Of course this is a move request, so I have started a Talk:Citizens_United_(organization)#Requested_move_27_October_2015 referring back to here, and added a courtesy note at Talk:Citizens_United_v._FEC#Requested_move_of_Citizens_United_.28organization.29_over_Citizens_United, to which page Talk:Citizens United redirects. Si Trew (talk) 09:06, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
... or convert it to a WP:TWODABS with both the organization and the ruling as entries. Citizens United (disambiguation) is red (and creating it right now would just confuse things further). My feeling is that the consensus at the previous discussion does not necessarily reflect a genuine broad consensus, as it had a limited audience (unless you were watching the page already, how would you know about the discussion?) Si Trew (talk) 09:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that the consensus there reflects genuine broad consensus, hence my move request and trying to cross-post at the relevant places to elicit a wider view (this is not, I hope, taken as WP:CANVASSING.) I'm going through the "What links here" for Citizens United and of the fifteen I've looked at so far, only one means the court case not the organization. Thus at least to our editing audience, it would appear that Citizens United unadorned means the organization.
So whatever the result here, doing the DABPIPEs there means those will still work (assuming that even if we did the move we'd leave the redirect at "(organization)"), I realise WP:NOTBROKEN but most of these are currently broken as they link to the case when they mean the organization, so I'm fixing them without prejudice to this discussion. Si Trew (talk) 09:45, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Si Trew, I completely agree with you that the discussion at Talk:Citizens_United_v._FEC#Citizens_United_Redirect_Reallocation_Proposal may only reflect the views of a limited population of editors, and I very much appreciate your efforts to post at the article for the SCOTUS case (I certainly do not think it is canvassing). Nevertheless, I still think that per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, the common usage and long-term significance of the term "Citizens United" have become associated with the SCOTUS case. For example, if you do a JSTOR search for "Citizens United," almost every hit refers to the SCOTUS case. Your Google settings may differ from mine, but the vast majority of hits I see for "Citizens United" refer to the SCOTUS case. However, I commend your efforts to fix the links to the organization; excellent work on your part. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 10:14, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I should also mention that the SCOTUS case has become something of a cause celebre in the United States for proponents of campaign finance reform. To that extent, the term "Citizens United" (as a metonymic reference to the SCOTUS case) has been used frequently in interviews with and debates among presidential candidates. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 10:22, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Having done a few more, actually a few more do crop up to the legal case, I would say it is about 15 to 5 at the moment organization vs. case. The case ones I am rewording naturally to say "in the [US Supreme Court] case of Citizens United v. FEC" or similar, which not only to me runs smoother without changing the meaning but I think is a slight improvement anyway, without being overly longwinded or legalistic. I'll continue plodding through those then give a final count here; I haven't checked JSTOR but I have no doubt what you say is true.
One use that I think is genuinely ambiguous is that at John Hall (New York politician); the text does not make it clear if "post-Citizens United" means the after the foundation of the organization, or after the decision in the court case. Could you advise? Si Trew (talk) 10:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Si Trew, it looks like the John Hall (New York politician) article was referring to the case, rather than the organization. I re-phrased the sentence to resolve the ambiguity, and I linked to Citizens United v. FEC. In general, if the article talks about the "effects" of "Citizens United," I think there is a high likelihood the article is referring to the court case, but do feel free to let me know if I can be of help resolving any other ambiguities. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 10:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Notecardforfree: Thanks. I should probably "let you know" on your talk page, but perhaps best to keep these "in public" for now (we can collapse these niggles for particular articles later.) At the current target Citizens United v. FEC there is also a link, apparently, to Citizens United, which of course would be an indirect circular link via the redirect. I can't find it though. I'm guessing somehow it's obscurely in one of the navboxes? Si Trew (talk) 10:47, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Si Trew, I combed through the article, but I couldn't find the link. I also did a search for "citizens united|" and "citizens united]" in the edit frame, but that didn't turn up any result either. Is it possible that the link is in the template at the top of the article? -- Notecardforfree (talk) 11:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Notecardforfree:. Possibly. It's the only article left that now links to this redirect, which is a bit annoying. Can you have a look at which way it should go at List of Frontline (PBS) episodes. Otherwise we're kinda done: counting through my contributions, I have changed 40 uses to point to the organization, and 14 to point to the legal case. Of course those figures only make sense in the context of what already pointed to one or the other, but those are what they are. Si Trew (talk) 11:15, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Si Trew, that article was also referring to the SCOTUS case (the summary of that episode on Frontline's website was "How has the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision changed campaigns in America?"). I rephrased the passage in the article to clear up the ambiguity, and I linked to Citizens United v. FEC. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 15:30, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think from the outset a hatnote at the target at "Citizens United" would have sufficed, or a requested move if the case was deemed the primary topic, but I see no consensus for either around January 2012. Doing so, of course, broke a lot of existing links (many of which I have fixed above). I mention this mainly to pre-empt any argument – which I have not seen yet – about a move being liable to break external links: that is no more or less true now than it was in January 2012, and even if it were true, it would prevent us ever moving anything. Si Trew (talk) 11:58, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see no proof so far that my move was "patently false". What you have apparently concluded so far is that on Wikipedia, there are more links to Citizens United the organization than Citizens United the court case. That's because Wikipedians are obsessed with minor details and there are people who go around fixing things like that. Nothing against people who do that; I would pretty easily be considered one of them. But out in the real world, in campaign finance discussions, where this topic is most often mentioned, it is the court case that is by far and away the primary topic. And its underrepresentation on Wikipedia is the result of how campaign finance is talked about: it is politics and the ins-and-outs and back-and-forths of politics are hugely undercovered on Wikipedia. What, are we going to say on Wikipedia, "on October 26, 2015, presidential candidate Hillary Clinton argued in Concord, New Hampshire that Citizens United should be overturned"? It's probably true [plus or minus a bit on the date], but it's a detail that has no place in Hillary Clinton or even Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 or even (if it existed) Hillary Clinton 2016 presidential campaign in New Hampshire. And even if that statement did exist, Wikipedians will link to the non-broken link despite what the policy might say. But I want someone listening to that speech who has never really paid attention to the details or the case but got interested for the first time to be able to search for it on Wikipedia and find a good length article on the topic at hand, not a four paragraph article on an organization that has apparently done very little else in its history. User:KarasuGamma, you say you have never heard of the organization before. That's all well and fine, if you're not an American or not interested in governance, then I wouldn't expect you to have. But someone who hears "Citizens United" for the first time in today's media climate will not be thinking "oh, that's an organization that I should look up". NW (Talk) 12:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, to whomever mentioned WP:WORLDWIDE above, it is completely inapplicable here. Please go by arguments and not shortcuts. If you do want to link to a policy or guideline, please do but explain how it matters to the case at hand. NW (Talk) 12:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that someone who hears 'Citizens United' for the first time will not be thinking, "oh, that's an organization that I should look up" (forgive the italics but we already have quotes within quotes). Unless they are interested in US politics, they may not have even heard of Citizens United. The organization links to the legal case and vice versa, so there's no huge concern about it, but what is for sure is that moving it in January 2012 broke a lot of existing links. It was moved – as far as I see with no consensus – in January 2012; moved back – again with no consensus – in July 2015, and a few months later ends up here, where we are trying to achieve consensus. Considering that the legal case has around 160 internal links (from all namespaces, including redirects) and the organization has just about 100, I don't think it is clear cut from the figures at Wikipedia that to a worldwide audience that it should refer to a leading decision by the US Supreme Court, rather than to a party in that case. Two other editors as well as me have never heard of it, and thought it should go to the organization not the leading case. What I meant by referring to WP:WORLDWIDE is that it's not so well-known to an audience outside the US as one within it; but I guess I chose the wrong policy without looking there. Perhaps it's best just to convert the R into a DAB, then. Si Trew (talk) 12:53, 27 October 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.

 comment discussion about this redirect has been reopened as a requested move, see talk:Citizens United (organization) -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 04:27, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pedantic note: the discussion was not re-opened; the requested move was opened in parallel to this discussion. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:44, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_October_27&oldid=1044450852"