Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 July 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 31[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 31, 2016.

Long article[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 August 10#Long article

Integrated watchlist[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 August 10#Integrated watchlist

Wikihounding[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. Deryck C. 16:06, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. All of the above are cross-namespace redirects from main to project space, most of them are redirects of terms used by Wikipedia community only, not the general public--thus may leave readers who clicked into these redirects really confused. Wishva de Silva | Talk 03:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:34, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-encyclopedic Wikipedia community jargon that is not appropriate for a retarget as suggested above (WP:NOT#DICT), and inappropriate in its current form as a cross namespace redirect. If notability is established, or this is mentioned within an article in the future, then it would be appropriate.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 20:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirects do not have to establish notability, they just need to be plausible search terms. If you look at the statistics for this redirect it averages 3 hits every day - and sometimes as many as 9 hits a day. This is just humans, so people are searching for this term and so deleting the redirect will be harmful. The term is only used in a Wikipedia context afaict but given we have a suitable mainspace target that already features a direct link the project space target it's clear that this will avoid all of the problems an CNR can (but not necessarily does) cause. Thryduulf (talk) 11:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The current target is not appropriate (WP:R#D6, WP:XNR) and neither is the suggested retarget as "wikihounding" isn't discussed there. -- Tavix (talk) 02:31, 9 August 2016 (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.

Turkish Genocide[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 previous AfD deletion of the disambiguation page at a similar title due to its being "vague", the competing retarget proposals, and the majority favouring deletion in this debate all point towards a deletion outcome. Deryck C. 15:54, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the same reasons Turkish genocide (see AFD here) was deleted, it's a very confusing redirect. Sro23 (talk) 14:45, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Armenian Genocide with a hatnote to the current target. I know this contradicts the result of the AfD, but google searches (including and excluding Wikipedia, as an exact phrase or otherwise) make it clear that that is the primary topic for the search term, even if it does not appear in the article and is contrary to what would be expected from a non-idiomatic reading of the words (i.e. a genocide of, rather than by, Turks). The page view stats show that even before the recent AfD the redirect was getting hits, meaning that real people are looking for this title. Indeed, it is a "POV magnet" but the correct way to deal with that is to (semi-)protect the page not to delete something that our readers are looking for. I would have made this argument in the AfD had I been aware of it, and I feel very strongly that that discussion came to the wrong conclusion (although the closure was correct based on the expressed views). Thryduulf (talk) 16:06, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Whatever the result of this discussion, I think it should also to apply to Turkish genocides which currently redirects to the same target as well. Sro23 (talk) 01:44, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree, I've added it to this nomination. Thryduulf (talk) 10:48, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Genocides in history#Ottoman Empire/Turkey. Jarble (talk) 17:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it entirely - this was the identical (except for caps) "Turkish genocide" AfD decision [1]. All the reasoning expressed there apply in this case too, and in fact Turkish Genocide should have been deleted at the same time as Turkish genocide. Turkish genocides too needs to be deleted (and any other redirect variants). They are all troll magnets, have been for years (the edit history of the deleted Turkish genocide consisted entirely of the repeated insertions of propaganda and their subsequent deletions). These "terms" are not terms found in any sources, and they are not even standalone phrases used anywhere in the linked articles (neither the current one or the proposed Armenian Genocide alterative) - so there is no need for any of them to exist as redirects. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 11:57, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • If something is a troll magnet we (semi-)protect it, rather than deleting it - this is true of all pages on Wikipedia, including redirects. Whether a term is used in reliable sources is entirely irrelevant to redirects - what matters is whether the redirect is useful, which in most cases means they are used by people to find the target page on Wikipedia. The evidence here is that they are used and that they are far more likely to be using it to search for the Armenian Genocide article than anything else. Thryduulf (talk) 18:57, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • We do not invent phrases to be used as redirects. You are making a false claim - no evidence at all has been presented that this phrase is used in legitimate sources related to the subject of any article it redirects to or would redirect to. Not a single source has been presented that uses the phrase "Turkish genocide" in relation to the Armenian Genocide. You are not seriously asserting that a searcher for Armenian Genocide would "far more likely" search using the words Turkish genocide? It is not a plausible search term for that subject. The phrase "Turkish Genocide" is only used in the worst Turkish Armenian Genocide-denialist propaganda texts, texts so trashy that even the "regular" denialists ignore them, texts that allege that Armenians committed genocide on Turks and killed millions of Turks. So its only legitimate redirect would be to Armenian Genocide denial - but that would be legitimizing the most outrageously fringe claim found in the most fringe material. Please stop being pedantic and realize that it is to the benefit of Wikipedia that this invalid term be deleted. The previous AfD came to that conclusion.Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:50, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • You make several incorrect assumptions and draw incorrect conclusions from them. Firstly, WP:RNEUTRAL makes it clear that we do not make value judgements about the search terms people use, what matters is that the article is at a neutral title and that people using both neutral and non-neutral search terms are able to find the article they are looking for. It is also completely irrelevant what proportion of people looking for the target article use this search term, what matters is what article people using this search term are looking for. All the evidence from Google web searches and Google scholar searches is that this phrase exists and is used almost exclusively to refer to the Armenian Genocide, hence this redirect should exist (backing this up, the stats show it is used by humans) and should point at the current target because that is what people using the term are looking for. Making value judgements about the people using a search term, or their motives for doing so, is ethically wrong and a violation of WP:NPOV by treating some viewpoints as wrong - whatever a person's views on the topic we take them to our neutral article. We do not, in Wikipedia's voice, say either that the events in 1915 were or were not genocide, we report what reliable sources say. Not that there does actually appear to be evidence that the term is used only by fringe denialists, or in "trashy" texts. Thryduulf (talk) 11:35, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • You supposed google searches in fact shown nothing that back your assertions. They show the words Turkish genocide being used, they do not show the term "Turkish Genocide" being used. This is because no such term exists in reliable sources. The only sources that use the term "Turkish Genocide" are pseudo-history propaganda sources that state that Armenians committed genocide on Turks during WW1 and which call that event the "Turkish Genocide". This is why the deleted "Turkish genocide" redirect was deleted - the page was repeatedly filled with copypaste material from these propaganda sources. I stated that not a single source has been presented that uses the term "Turkish Genocide" in relation to the Armenian Genocide. You have yet to give a single source that uses that term. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:54, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, these redirects should have been deleted when the disambiguation was deleted in May. Consensus has already been formed in favor of deletion for these terms, not sure why we need to have this discussion again. -- Tavix (talk) 22:02, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Armenian genocide per Thryduulf's Google searches that show it does get scholarly use in that fashion, hatnote to the section mentioned by Jarble, and protect the page. "Turkish Genocides" would just be an alternate capitalization and is okay. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:21, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Prior consensus was clear that these are not helpful. I understand that consensus can change, but my opinion personally, at least, is still the same. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:45, 9 August 2016 (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.

1825 Honduras Constitution[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. -- Tavix (talk) 23:47, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The page was created as a machine translation of es: Constitución del Estado de Honduras de 1825, one of dozens so created by Cadejoblanco (talk · contribs) who has now been blocked. Some are now listed for translation, others have already been deleted. This one was redirected by Jac16888 (talk · contribs) to the generic topic, but the latter page makes no mention of anything before 1838. – Fayenatic London 11:39, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete there is no mention of 1825 in either Honduras or History of Honduras either, so those aren't useful targets. There is a single bullet in Legal history in Honduras#Constitution as State of Honduras which reads in its entirety "Constitution of the State of Honduras of 1825", so that doesn't educate readers. There is marginally more at Departments of Honduras#Evolution of Honduras's territorial organization, "1825: The constitutional congress convened in that year orders that the state be divided into seven departments: Comayagua, Santa Bárbara, Tegucigalpa, Choluteca, Yoro, Olancho, and Gracias (later renamed Lempira)." and the lead at President of Honduras ends with "Afterwards of the Central America Declaration of Independence publication in Honduras the Constitution of Honduras in 1825 created the three powers: Executive, Legislative and Judicial." however none of these cover the whole topic, so deletion to encourage article creation seems the best bet here. Thryduulf (talk) 12:04, 31 July 2016 (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/2016_July_31&oldid=1039423117"