Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 August 13

August 13

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 13, 2012

Kamieniec, Poland

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 Kamieniec. JohnCD (talk) 21:15, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kamianets-Podilskyi is in Ukraine, not in Poland and not an object "Kamieniec, Poland".

Redirect should be removed because of the point 5 of "Reasons for deleting".

P.S. I not sure if I correctly specify redirect for discussion, because it is not clear for me all the details and this is my first redirect for discussions. Hope somebody more experienced fix my flaws. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergtk (talk • contribs)

  • You didn't add the {{rfd}} template to the redirect page and forgot to sign your nomination here (both of which I've fixed), but other than that you got it right. Thryduulf (talk) 02:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was it not part of Poland during the Middle Ages? Siuenti (talk) 19:07, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because it was part of the Kingdom of Poland, a long time ago. Siuenti (talk) 04:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • To Siuenti. It should be renamed at least from "Kamieniec" to "Kamieniec Podolski", it is not mentioned as "Kamieniec" on the page Kamianets-Podilskyi. (It is also quite confusing to see even Kamieniec Podolski in Poland. Is it possible to specify something like history category in title or whatsoever?) Sergtk (talk) 12:39, 15 August 2012. (UTC)
    • Good point. It turns out that Kamieniec is a disambiguation page, which includes the one in question, as well as many in present-day Poland. I change my opinion to retarget to Kamieniec Siuenti (talk) 20:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I understood redirect for discussion should be here for a week. Can I retarget Kamieniec, Poland to Kamieniec already or what to do next? Thanks. Sergtk (talk) 0:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Discussions usually remain open for at least a week. In cases where consensus is not clear, especially at RfD, experience shows that many redirect discussions remain open for longer, even when not relisted. My first bit of advice would that there's no rush, and my second bit of advice is to ask an administrator (or I suppose here or WT:RFD works too) if you feel that it's important to close a particular discussion. BigNate37(T) 03:16, 24 August 2012 (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.

Parexel International

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 PAREXEL. JohnCD (talk) 21:10, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This has correctly been a redirect to PAREXEL since March 2006, the NASDAQ listed public company. Someone has come along today first blanking the page, and then retargetting it to a redlink, and finally twice to something completely unrelated (Parexarnis) stating some things about facebook that doesn't make any sense. Propose re-target back to PAREXEL. KTC (talk) 21:20, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to PAREXEL. Parexarnis is an unrelated butterfly article that does not use the term 'parexel' at all. It seems like she/he/they are attempting to correct a Facebook link hijacking, presumably resulting from the way Facebook extracts data from Wikipedia. This is not our concern, and the correct way to fix such a problem would be to contact Facebook. The canned WP:HDT response for this, Template:HD/facebook, states "We at Wikipedia have no control over how the content is included nor can we help to remove it. Facebook does have a topic on Community pages and profile connections on their Help Center." BigNate37(T) 21:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • retarget per BigNate. Thryduulf (talk) 02:03, 14 August 2012 (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.

Azghyin ushtykzyn'azaby

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. JohnCD (talk) 21:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect should be deleted. The 1993 film Azghyin ushtykzyn'azaby is unrelated to the 1996 film Prisoner of the Mountains. Gabbe (talk) 18:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete to encourage creation of new article.--Lenticel (talk) 01:05, 14 August 2012 (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.

Pro-pedophile activism

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 Pedophilia#Pedophile advocacy groups. Tikiwont (talk) 07:13, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, pro-pedophile activism points to age of consent reform which rather suggests that one is a synonym for the other. This seems problematic: there are people who support age of consent reform who aren't "pro-pedophile", and there are probably goals of paedophilia activists (in as much as they still exist) that differ from age of consent reform.

Indeed, the article age of consent reform includes details of how various countries including Russia, India and some US states have made (or wish to make) the age of consent higher which I presume is something pro-paedophilia activists would oppose.

Instead, I'd suggest that this redirect should point to Pedophilia#Pedophile advocacy groups given that probably is more useful for people looking for this topic than age of consent reform. (Incidentally, we seem to have the weird situation now of having a category called Category:Pedophile activism but no main article on the topic, but that is an issue outside of the realm of this RfD.)

I would usually boldly fix the redirect myself, but given the heavy level of controversy on Wikipedia in the past on pedophilia-related topics, I think a discussion at RfD is probably a better venue for establishing consensus. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree that the top of Age of consent reform is not the best place to land, but Age of consent reform#Paedophile advocacy groups has a similar but slightly longer section of content so the initial thought is to refine the target to there. However, I'm not sure that we should have both sections, or if not which is the best to keep. I'll leave a note at Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch#Alerts (although that project seems rather inactive) and the parent Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality. Thryduulf (talk) 15:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for the move of the redirect, and moral support for the size of your balls for bringing this dramafest up again. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Erm, hmmm. I don't feel strongly about this and I suppose this would be an OK change. My one (slight) trepidation is that I'm not a huge fan of redirects to sections, since the section names may change and in this case it's reasonably likely that sooner or later someone will change the section label, since "Pedophile advocacy group" is a somewhat fraught term of unclear and debatable meaning. If/when this happens the link will just devolve to the top of the Pedophilia article(unless/until this is caught and some other arrangement made). Is that OK? It's OK in my opinion. Is it better than the current target (Age of consent reform)? I dunno; maybe. FWIW and contra the nominator, though, I don't think the implication of the current link is that the terms are identical but rather that one is a subset of the other... bottom line, I support I guess if no more cogent contra arguments are advanced. Herostratus (talk) 16:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support suggestion to redirect to section on Pedophilia article. Age of consent reform is only one aspect of pro-pedophile activism and age of consent reform is itself a legitimate issue that is not solely of interest to pro-pedophile groups.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • retarget Pedophilia#Pedophile advocacy groups seems the least problematic.--Salix (talk): 21:55, 9 September 2012 (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.

Settler bus

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 No Consensous. Open for over a month. Strong opinions both sides, but no consensous either way. TexasAndroid (talk) 21:39, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—irrelevant redirect, similar to criterion 5 (redirecting Apple to Orange). —Ynhockey (Talk) 14:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC) Ynhockey (Talk) 14:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The edit history and Google show that "settler bus" is a common way to refer to the buses run by Egged, e.g. [1]. It might be a non-neutral term (I'm not immediately clear), but per WP:RNEUTRAL that doesn't matter. It's also worth noting for future reference that WP:PROD explicitly notes that "it cannot be used with redirects". Thryduulf (talk) 15:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did the Google search as Necrothesp suggested in his edit summary, but I believe there is a clear misunderstanding here. Redirects should be used for synonyms, and nothing indicates that these two are synonyms (including the link you posted)—indeed they are not. In addition I have knowledge of the topic and this just redirect just seems silly to me. Assuming "settler bus" means a bus that serves the population of Israeli settlements, Egged is not the only one that fits that criterion. Others include: Afikim, Illit, possibly Superbus and about half a dozen companies run by the individual regional councils in the settlements. So redirecting it to Egged is sort of akin to redirecting "President of the United States" to "Lyndon Johnson" because he is one of the Presidents of the United States. Regarding using a prod on a redirect, I wasn't aware it was not allowed, but this has been noted. —Ynhockey (Talk) 13:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. The reason given by the nominator is pure rubbish, since this name is used to refer to Egged. I'm not getting why the nominator objects to a redirect from a name that is clearly used. Is this some sort of political objection? -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: please assume good faith. This redirect receives very few pageviews and the article does not mention the term, so it is actually rather unclear that this redirect is used. Because target article does not include the term "settler bus" it is a violation of our principle of least astonishment; normally I would say that this is cause for deletion, but based on Thryduulf's findings this is an article deficiency, not a redirect deficiency. If the term is worthy of mention in the article, that would satisfy WP:V and WP:R#PLA concerns. BigNate37(T) 21:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am assuming good faith. I'm just puzzled as to the reasons for the objection, which the nominator doesn't state, and that's all I could come up with as a possible explanation. It was merely a query. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Necrothesp, please read my comment above in reply to Thryduulf. —Ynhockey (Talk) 13:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see what you mean now. However, as Egged is by far the best known of the Israeli bus companies (even I've heard of it, and I've never been there) I think it remains a reasonal redirect. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed the biggest Israeli bus company by far even now, when much of its lines have been transferred to other companies. However, this does not warrant the label "settler bus" (I won't even comment on the fact that it's a pejorative term, enough to invalidate it as a redirect on its own). In fact, there is no evidence to suggest that Egged is the company serving the majority of lines to Israeli settlements, and nothing at all that connects the two terms directly. Even my previous comparison with presidents is not entirely correct because at least Johnson was famous for being a US president. Egged is not famous for serving Israeli settlements; it's famous for other things, like being one of the biggest bus companies in the world (once the second biggest), being the only Israeli bus company that operates in foreign countries, etc., but serving Israeli settlements is simply not something it's best/well-known for.
This concern can be addressed by creating a disambiguation page that lists all bus companies serving settlements, but that would be very problematic for other reasons. —Ynhockey (Talk) 17:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I should point out that being pejorative in no way invalidates a term as a redirect, although it generally would as an actual article title. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I should rephrase that. Combined with the fact that it's not a redirect with significant usefulness, it would invalidate it. Per WP:RNEUTRAL. —Ynhockey (Talk) 14:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, here is a question: which article or section thereof is the most logical place to explain the term "settler bus?" It seems like a deficiency in our content that the term is left undefined, and if we can correct that then this redirect's best target becomes obvious. BigNate37(T) 22:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The only place that could be remotely relevant would be Israeli settlement or Transportation in Israeli settlements, although there's a reason the term isn't defined—because it isn't a term. It's more like an adjective with a noun, like black chair or something. Readers can find out a lot more by searching for the term on Wikipedia than by going into any one article. —Ynhockey (Talk) 09:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Illit seems like the "Settlement Bus Line", if there has to be a redirect to one. I mean it's right in the name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.251.19.59 (talk) 03:25, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete so Egged is a company that provides services some of which are know as Settler buses. It may be the most well known one but you'd rather expect a link in their article regarding the service which might the in turn mention Egged as example or main provider, just like Mehadrin bus lines. However, it's a generic and somewhat self explanatory term that so far doesn't seem to warrant an article, but that may change. On the other hand as far we should discourage redirects form the general product or service to one provider since it conflates thing .--Tikiwont (talk) 07:34, 15 September 2012 (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.

Gary Harrison

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 convert to disambiguation page. No one specifically suggested the conversion, but in the absence of an article about the living Gary Harrison to which a hatnote could be added, this will solve the problem. Orlady (talk) 17:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a "Gary" mentioned in the target, but nothing about a Gary Harrison. This seems like a common enough name that it would lead to confusion. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per this link: http://southpark.wikia.com/wiki/Gary_Harrison - This is a character in that episode of South Park. A look at Google failed to turn up any other Gary Harrisons that would ever warrant a wiki page. Ego White Tray (talk) 06:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It turns out that Gary Harrison is a massively prolific, CMA-award winning and Grammy-nominated songwriter. My reading of WP:COMPOSER is that he meets point 1 in spades (just search for all mentions of his name in Wikipedia articles) and also point 4, suggesting that he should have an article here. The problem is that the internet knowns virtually nothing about him [2] illustrates this well. I think an article would be possible, just very difficult. The current target article contains a lot about the fictional character Gary Harrison, even if the two words of the name don't appear next to each other (e.g. "A new family, the Harrisons, move into South Park, and their son Gary [...] invokes the wrath of the other boys.") as he is the central character of the episode. If we had an article on the songwriter the current target would be linked from there by a hatnote, but as we don't I'm not at all sure what's best. See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 July 20#Gary Harrison. Thryduulf (talk) 08:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the songwriter had an article, it would make more sense to make Gary Harrison about him, and put a hatnote for the fictional character. I would think that a songwriter with multiple credits would beat out a one-shot fictional character as a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's exactly what I was trying to say (albeit less elegantly). If we had an article about the musician it would be at Gary Harrison and the fictional character would get a hatnote rather than the redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 22:11, 13 August 2012 (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/2012_August_13&oldid=1039429023"