Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 November 29

The result of the debate was no consensus.
There is a great deal of informed discussion here but no clear answer. Despite staying open significantly longer than usual, no new evidence has been presented nor does it appear that consensus will form soon. "No consensus" defaults to "keep for now". The redirect may be retargeted (as an ordinary editor action) or renominated after a reasonable period. Rossami (talk) 04:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-neutral redirect, ORish (not used in any English publication - [1]) User:Piotrus —Preceding comment was added at 18:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Lie. Polish Army annexed only Zaolzie area in 1938, which is a small territory of about several hundred kms², which was a part of Czechoslovakia. Poland never occupied whole Czechoslovakia. User who created this bogus redirect shown that he is not familiar with this local history and completely unaware of existence of Zaolzie region, because Cieszyn (Těšín) is just a one town ... - Darwinek (talk) 21:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is a legitimate redirect to events in 1938 which some Poles try to marginalize, sadly with success on Wikipedia. As per the reasoning of the very same two Gentlemen above, given in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 October 25 in regard to Operacja wileńska, Operacja wilenska, Wilno offensive and in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operation Wilno, which are Polish terms for the Polish occupation of the Lithuanian city of Vilnius, not used in English, but introduced to Wikipedia and defended there by Poles: "it stands to reason some people are going to look for it" (Piotrus) and "Completely harmless disambig which in no way violates any Wikipedia policy" (Darwinek). It was Piotrus who created[2] Partition (politics) with "German occupation of Czechoslovakia and Munich Agreement of 1938". He forgot to make clear that the peaceful entry of German troops into the Sudetenland in October was agreed upon by Chamberlain and others. The naming Polish Occupation is used in English, e.g. by the victims: The Polish Occupation. Czechoslovakia was, of course, mutilated not only by Germany. Poland and Hungary also each asked for their share (Hubert Ripka: Munich, Before and After: A Fully Documented Czechoslovak Account of the ..., 1939 [3] [4]) Hardly anybody not knowing both Slavic spellings, and looking for events known in English as Teschen 1938, will be able to master the correct spelling of History of Cieszyn and Těšín, an article written mainly by Polish editors, which spares only one short sentence for the 1938 events. Somebody interested on the Polish share of the Occupation of Czechoslovakia is currently redirected to German Occupation of Czechoslovakia. The redirect needs to be replaced by a disamb, also for the Hungarian Occupation of Czechoslovakia. See First Vienna Award etc., or The Hungarian Occupation. The third act in the ruthless partition of Czechoslovakia was performed by Hungary[5] Besides, there is Polish-Czechoslovak border conflicts (aka Border conflicts between Poland and Czechoslovakia), and the hitherto uncovered Polish participation in the 1968 suppression of Prague spring. -- Matthead  DisOuß   13:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, only a small portion of Czechoslovakia was annexed, and it is in detail presented in the Zaolzie article. Above German editor only shows his ignorancy by still pursuing his lies. Zaolzie area was annexed in 1938, it has nothing to do with only a one town, to which this bogus redirect redirects. No one here tries to marginalize this event which is good documented by the way. If above German editor would be so kind not to pursue his revisionist views and acts of revenge, that would be good. - Darwinek 14:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Darwinek, your continued use of the Polish POV Zaolzie for the Olza River region, also covered in Cieszyn Silesia which is again named half Polish, illustrates that Polish POV totally dominates English Wikipedia in this case, and not only this case. Sad. And so much to clean up. At least Český Těšín has its Czech name - and the Polish name Czeski Cieszyn you added [6] to "official_name"! Maybe Polish occupation of Czechoslovakia should simply redirect to your edit history? Cieszyn of course shows only the Polish name in its infobox, added by you [7]. After all, it was only part of Bohemia for the majority of the millenium, a fact carefully hidden by a Polish named link to the Duchy of Teschen. -- Matthead  DisOuß   16:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • 1.) Wow! "Polish POV dominates Wikipedia". What will be next? Total Jewish world domination? 2.) If you will spend a two minutes to read Český Těšín article you will find out a significant Polish minority lives there, which means the official name is also Polish, by the Czech law. There is no Czech minority in Cieszyn, that's why only the Polish name. 3.) Fact it was a fiefdom of Czech crown is not hidden. Maybe you will be happy to hear that half of Sachsen and Niederschlesien was also a part of Czech crown. No, you won't be of course. 4.) After all this redirect will be deleted, because as you strongly believe, Poles rule EN Wikipedia, right? 5.) Zaolzie is not a POV Polish name. Read that article, you troll. - Darwinek 16:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Misleading, unnecessary redirect. It suggests Poland occupied the whole country. Squash Racket 19:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Polish-Czechoslovak border conflicts, which is a comprehensive article on the topic suggested by the title of the redirect. Tankred 19:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only problem is as far as I know Google searches in redirects too, so this may be a way to 'create' a new phrase in History. Squash Racket 05:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I have never heard about Polish occupation of Czechoslovakia. Tymek 00:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep' Ligitamate redirect, and ev3en if they never occupied the whole country, the redirect will send them to a place that informs them about that--Phoenix-wiki ^{(talk · contribs)} 12:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Redirect as per Tankred. --Koppany 18:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete completely misleading. Not historically accurate. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 17:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "Occupation" is not a word to be thrown about so lightly. KissL 11:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't know anything about this issue, so I hope I can be a neutral third party. It seems to me that the question, for a redirect, is not "Is it accurate?" but "Is it a search term that will be used by someone who's looking for the info in this article?" If yes, then keep it. If no, then delete it. Articles are supposed to be accurate. Redirects are supposed to help people find the relevent article. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 00:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above plus it seems to me that creators' reasons "He forgot to make clear that the peaceful entry of German troops into the Sudetenland in October was agreed upon by Chamberlain and others." are somewhat misplaced. If there are concerns with a different article, inaccuracies, misrepresentations, whatever these should be solved at the relevant talk pages, not by creating this unrelated redirect. Hobartimus (talk) 11:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per this many contributors expressed desire to have similar redirects and disambiguation pages. Also Poles occupied part of state territory and it is the fact. M.K. (talk) 13:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 01:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Delete - orphaned, used only in a hatlink on Julia Thorne which I changed to point to the actual character name rather than the alias. Unlikely search term with the parenthetical. Otto4711 (talk) 18:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Bomb from five thousand feet Julia Thorne has a disambig link to Sydney Bristow. --Thinboy00 @176, i.e. 03:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 01:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Yet another cross-namespace redirect, and probably not a very useful one. This is something that (at least theoretically) an encyclopaedic article could be written about, so the Wikispace redirect should be deleted. Terraxos (talk) 02:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Comes out of the main space. i kan reed 14:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Snowball delete unless someone comes up with a valid keep argument. --Thinboy00 @150, i.e. 02:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 01:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Currently a double redirect from article namespace to Wikipedia namespace. Best to clean it up.

I found it more appropriate, since it's faster to type on the keyboard. However, if it breaks any guideline, feel free to remove it. Mikael Häggström (talk) 07:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Cross-namespace redirects are best avoided, and I don't see any particularly convincing need to keep this one. (Yes, it's slightly quicker to type than Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine - but WP:MED is much quicker than both!) Terraxos 06:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete in favour of WP:MED. Dihydrogen Monoxide ^♫ 10:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.