Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 September 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 26[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 26, 2017.

Golden showergate[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) 01:49, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have carefully kept this unconfirmed, salacious accusation out of the Trump articles for BLP reasons. For that reason, neither the allegations nor this nickname are mentioned at the target article Donald Trump–Russia dossier. IMO maintaining this as a redirect undermines our BLP policy, which says we should remove "contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced," i.e., "relies on sources that fail to meet verifiability standards". The dossier is the only source for this claim and it has never been verified. We just deleted the redirect for the more common "Pissgate" for BLP concerns, see WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 September 25#Pissgate. I believe we should do the same for this much less common term "Golden showergate". MelanieN (talk) 16:19, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating:

  • Delete all per nom. If Pissgate doesn't get a redirect, the euphemisms for piss should not either. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:13, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because I didn't know what this was. There should be some link to information if people want to know it and the information itself is allowed on Wikipedia.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 14:57, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is an article Golden shower on Wikipedia for people who want to find out what that means. However, "Golden shower-gate" refers to a scandalous allegation connecting this with a specific living person. We have nothing at the target article or AFAIK anywhere else on Wikipedia about that connection, so the redirect is inappropriate. --MelanieN (talk) 15:34, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I will concede on that point.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:40, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We have a reference to the allegation here. - SummerPhDv2.0 22:36, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sad as it may be that we need to deal with this kind of crapissue, I can't see any BLP violation in it. None of the unconfirmed narrative is repeated on WP, it has been widely repeated, including on censored US broadcast TV (a reasonably high bar for both decency and libel) and WP is not censored. If folks try to look this up by whatever search terms, they should be able to get to where they intended and find the NPOV and BLP compliant content in the Dossier article. I favor as much indexation and as easy and productive a search process as possible. Users will decide whether the search result accomplished their goal. SPECIFICO talk 19:35, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • For god's sake delete them all. With prejudice. The term isn't even mentioned in the target article. Bishonen | talk 19:49, 27 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. Neither the term nor the allegation that spawned the term are mentioned at the target so the redirect is misleading. Thryduulf (talk) 20:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Iff the term was mentioned in the article then, per point 3 of WP:RNEUTRAL it would be an appropriate have redirect from those terms the allegations are being referred to as in external sources (I have not looked whether all are) and WP:NOTCENSORED means that just because that some or all of these titles are disliked by some people that is no reason to delete. My only objection to this redirect, and really just about the only relevant one I can think of, is that there is no content relating to it in the article. Thryduulf (talk) 01:15, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: FWIW, the term is mentioned at List of scandals with "-gate" suffix. -- Tavix (talk) 20:40, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've boldly removed it. If it isn't in the main article, it shouldn't be in a list of -gates. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:50, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all yes, the BLP policy applies to redirects just as much as it does to articles. The overwhelming majority of our readers don't know what a redirect is. The just know that when they type it in, it goes to an article. Keeping these redirects could be read as an endorsement of the term. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:46, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think I misunderstood above. I thought this would be on a disambiguation page, or do those only show results with the same words in them? SPECIFICO talk 21:00, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, what would be the basis of the BLP violation? Is this a crime in Russia? Nobody's stating the Dossier has been verified. SPECIFICO talk 21:03, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My assumption would be that it will autopopulate in the search bar when typed, which means it's very possible that someone could randomly click it and be redirected to the main article. The BLP violation is obvious: it's an implication from Wikipedia as to what the alleged actions are. We don't get to skirt around mentioning them in the article by having them as search terms or on disambiguation pages. These are coatrack redirects, and should be deleted. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:11, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's worse than autopopulating in the search bar. Google itself leads people here who are looking for it. If you Google for 'Golden showergate', this redirect is the #5 item displayed. --MelanieN (talk) 21:44, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well no, we know what is alleged, we just don't know or care or state whether it occurred. SPECIFICO talk 21:50, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - While it is true that "Golden showergate" is not in the target article, it is not true that there is absolutely no mention of the claim in the article. [1] does give the title of the Newsweek article: "Trump, Russian Spies, and the Infamous 'Golden Showers' Memos". As a result of that source, that there was a claim of Trump's involvement in golden showers is not "unsourced or poorly sourced". As the reliable source confirms, there clearly were allegations circulating that Trump had been involved in golden showers with prostitutes.[2] - SummerPhDv2.0 22:34, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Newsweek is a reliable source, yes. So it carefully explains where it is getting the information: from rumors and an unverified dossier. Do you really consider it to be within our BLP guidelines to report that an unverified rumor about such-and-such is being circulated about so-and-so? In other words, the existence of a rumor is documented; does that allow us to publish the substance of the rumor as well? --MelanieN (talk) 22:47, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In some cases, the answer is clearly yes. Without discussing the controversial claims regarding living people, articles like Pizzagate conspiracy theory, the articles under Category:Conspiracy theories regarding Barack Obama and hundreds of others would not exist at all. Clearly this claim did not get as much press as any of those. It did, however, get more press than many of the allegations of plagiarism in articles about songs, books, speeches and their authors which often survive based on a single source. This claim is arguably more controversial. The question is where in the spectrum between those two does this claim fall? That it has been carefully expunged from our content is not an indication that it should have been, only that it was. - SummerPhDv2.0 23:28, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Given the *huge* coverage of this shower bit, yes it needs to be mentioned. It's mentioned in popular expressions of amazement in mass media, it's the subject of ongoing comedic ridicule in print, broadcast, and internet media, it's the topic of serious discussion in the political and national security journalists as to whether Trump could be blackmailed for this and other taboo behavior... This is 100% out there in the public eye worldwide and so there is no BLP issue in referring to the Dossier without further comment. Moreover, MelanieN consider the example of the conspiracy theories concerning the murder of Seth Rich. WP has done very little to stop the recurring posting of these disgusting conspiracy theories, choosing instead to report at length on how they originate, how they are propagated, etc. etc. SPECIFICO talk 23:43, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
International Business Times uses Golden Shower Gate [3] [4] and Washington Examiner used Pissgate [5] , so these variants may be acceptable if they are discussed in the article as a "-gate", but the other variants would need significant coverage. Here's buzzfeed and hashtag peegate [6] and Heavy.com peegate [7] But it shouldn't have variants that are made up and lack resources. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:35, 28 September 2017 (UTC) updated 00:39, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as childish smears. — JFG talk 23:48, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please check your bourgeois morals at the door. What smear? Was anyone harmed? Did furry animals suffer? Very likely, whichever folks for whatever their reason choose to google Golden Showergate, many of them will be glad to have found WP's article on the Dossier. SPECIFICO talk 23:53, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I want to !vote to delete so bad, but the sad (#SAD!) truth is that I actually got 25K+ results from google when I searched for the term (in quotes, using only one of the spellings). So <sigh> keep. I guess. Will someone please come up with a good argument to change my mind? Please? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:17, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @MjolnirPants: however many times it's mentioned on Google, it is not mentioned in the article so someone searching for information about what "peegate" (etc) is or who wants to find out more information about what the allegations actually are, or whether there is any veracity to them will not find the answers in our article. The presence of the redirect would indicate we do, especially to search engines, and is thus misleading. Thryduulf (talk) 01:07, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Come to think of it, shouldn't it be in the article? SPECIFICO talk 01:22, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that there is a consensus among editors of the article that including mention of the allegations in the article would be a BLP violation. If you disagree with that then you need to discuss it on the article talk page as this is entirely the wrong venue. Thryduulf (talk) 01:31, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(firing up batmobile) OK I am on my way. Although it's also arguably irrelevant to this discussion, I think. SPECIFICO talk 01:35, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Much sympathy, Pants. I tried to change my own mind, but I couldn't make it across the finish line. In general I'm a strong opponent of the neo-suffix "-gate", a generally meaningless tag, but who are we to insist that other folks use language to convey meaning? SPECIFICO talk 01:18, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So I understand what's being said here: there's no mention whatsoever of "golden showergate" (or any variation) in the article, and the consensus is that including the allegations that Trump had a hooker pee on him was a BLP vio (I think I concur with that, though I could see how the right wording -more vague than a politician in an interview- might be something I could say "meh" to), since it only stems from this you-know-it's-all-bullshit report. That's okay, but the reason I !voted was because I want to make sure people can find the article, and I wonder how many people will look for it by typing "golden shower gate" in the search bar. So it doesn't really address the reason (which I admit I hadn't spelled out before now) I !voted the way I did.
That being said... Captain Hammer Pants to the rescue! I checked out the page view statistics on these. Now, I know how redirects work here, and that doesn't affect page views (or it shouldn't... If it does, the wmf labs guys got some 'splainin' to do). So when I saw this, I realized that the best reason to Delete this crap no pun intended is because no-one is actually using it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:54, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that also a reason to let it lie. No harm to peeps who do not use it. SPECIFICO talk 02:02, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, you're saying it does WP:NOHARM? ;) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:38, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all for the same reason that they are not mentioned in the target article: "Avoid repeating gossip." Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:45, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete all Not in article, obvious BLP vios.LM2000 (talk) 08:45, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Bring them back only if additional evidence of this appears. Objective3000 (talk) 16:25, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all – They're used in various reliable sources. No policy rationale for removal. Carl Fredrik talk 20:33, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not mentioned in the article, so it will not help anyone understand anything. DGG ( talk ) 01:38, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Thryduulf, until it's in the article; and this isn't the place to discuss whether it should be in the article or not. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 05:43, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All Pretty funny, but childish and inappropriate for BLP. Just because a RS here or there has used them does not mean we need to. PackMecEng (talk) 23:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please see [8] 25,000 hits on a google search for the term. SPECIFICO talk 23:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Only if you look at the pageviews. For a article that gets around 500 pageviews per day, it simply is not used because it is not important. Also as mentioned above, it does not appear in the article. Finally unless my google is broken, I get around 6k with any of the whatever gates in quotes. If I break that down to the past few months, I get 3 pages of the googles. One last thing, pee tape and pee-pee tapes are to vague, I do not suggest searching for those... Just a FYI... PackMecEng (talk) 03:05, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Midland Railway 2501 and 2511 Class locomotives[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 October 6#Midland Railway 2501 and 2511 Class locomotives

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_September_26&oldid=1088105812"