Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 June 14

June 14

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 14, 2012

Patrizia D'Addario

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 consensus to delete. Thryduulf (talk) 17:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relation between the redirect source and the target is not mentioned in the target article. A Search Engine Test finds the only relation between the redirect source (the name of a self-described prostitute) and the target (a former Italian Prime Minister) is an unproven event that supposedly occurred in 2009. Redirect serves no useful purpose other than to help revive embarrassing allegations. --Allen3 talk 14:40, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It's not "reviving" allegations; the trial is going on right now, as I type this. It's hardly irrelevant. Whether or not she is mentioned by name in his article can change at any time, depending on the current version, but people searching for her are looking for him. According to the page statistics, the redirect has been used 22 times this month alone (not counting the hits you generated as you set up the nomination). So, while it may eventually be unnecessary, it's useful for now. I would, however, support changing the redirect to Silvio Berlusconi underage prostitution charges, which did not exist when the redirect was first created. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 15:35, 14 June 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.

Wikipedia:Cosmos and Psyche

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; CSD G7. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 15:40, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace redirect which appears to be result of a typo when moving an article; nothing else links here, unlikely search term, only one pageview, &c.. bobrayner (talk) 11:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I am the author. It is the result of a typographical error. — goethean ॐ 11:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could this be a nice easy CSD candidate, then? G6 or G7 maybe... bobrayner (talk) 12:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. — goethean ॐ 14:41, 14 June 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.

Petara

 Relisted. See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 July 1#Petara. Thryduulf (talk) 17:11, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dingoes Ate My Baby

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 keep. There appears to be sufficient consensus that the current target is the most adequate one, and there's no evidence that this is a BLP violation. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest deletion and moving Dingoes Ate My Baby (band) back here. In the words of User:Amandajm at Talk:Death of Azaria Chamberlain#Redirect,

This redirect is in the worst possible taste ... for the following reasons:
• This article contains biographical information pertaining to living persons and they need to be treated with appropriate respect.
• Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons
• The quotation is inaccurate. It is not what Lindy Chamberlain actually said, so it isn't relevant here.
• Anyone who looks for those words is presumably looking for the fictitious band.

Paul_012 (talk) 07:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as creator of redirect. When I googled "a dingo ate my baby" (much closer to the original quote), the wikipedia page on the band was the first search result. Since I changed the phrase to a redirect, Death of Azaria Chamberlain is now the first result, as it should be. The accuracy of the quote is irrelevant, accuracy is also irrelevant for redirects. You're expecting us to believe that no one is ever mistaken about the quote and that no one ever thinks it's dingos instead of dingo? Finally, the idea that anyone looking for it is looking for the band is ludicrous. I have even pondered nominating the band for deletion. It's not very important to the TV show, Buffy, and has no real-world significance, and its notability is questionable. So, are our users typing in a slightly wrong quote, or are they typing in the name of a non-notable band? Seems easy to answer. And how it an almost accurate quote from the story "in the worst possible taste", especially considering that A dingo ate my baby! redirects there too? D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Real-life event vs. a fictional band from Buffy the Vampire Slayer? Real-life event, please. It's obviously a popular misquote, and precisely the sort of thing for which redirects were intended. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 15:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added the lowercase version of this redirect to the nomination as they are nearly identical. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 02:51, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove Can anyone explain to me why a "quotation" needs to have a hatnote? it is not usual for a quote to have a hatnote. "What about me little mate" doesn't have a hatnote. "Life wasn't meant to be easy" doesn't have a hatnote". Why should a serious misquotation of what a frantic mother said have a hatnote? Who would google that anyway, when people know the names of Lindy Chamberlain and Azaria Chamberlain very well, and both will take you to the article.
    The fictitious band needs to be listed in the media section.
    Don't the feelings of the family count for anything?
    That ghastly misquotation goes against the policy of treating the living with due respect. Misquoting Lindy Chamberlain doesn't do that.
    Haven't you guys got any human decency?
    The naming of the band was victimisation. The misquoting of what the mother of the dead child said also amounted to victimisation, because the sentence itself was widely used to ridicule Lindy Chamberlain. Amandajm (talk) 05:21, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • See below for the reason this should be removed:
      WP:AVOIDVICTIM
      Avoid victimization
      When writing about a person noteworthy only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. This is of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization.
      Please see Biographies of living persons noticeboard — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amandajm (talk • contribs)
      • First, there is nothing wrong with a quotation in a hatnote - any time that a quotation redirects somewhere and readers might be looking for something different, such as the hatnote at Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow. Second, as far as "pared back to a version that is completely sourced...", the fact that dingoes did, in fact, kill her baby is probably the best-sourced fact in the entire article. As far as not "including every detail", this isn't a detail, this is the entire essence of what happened. Finally, the most important thing, this is not an article, it's a redirect. Redirects don't have to be neutral, see Water fluoridation conspiracy theory for an example. Redirects don't have to be correct, see Barack OBama and Kevin perria. The standard for deleting redirects is high as they are not articles, and deleting requires a much more blatant violation of neutral point of view, such as the "worst movie" redirects here.
        Redirects don't make editorial statements, not really. They are there to help someone who doesn't know what the child's name was but incorrectly remembers that she said "dingoes ate my baby". The quote is already out there and people already associate it with this case, and we can't change that. Removing the redirect will not make it go away. Wikipedia did not create the media circus, Wikipedia did not create the botched police investigation, and neither will be made any worse by having this redirect. The redirect exists because people already think she said that, and the real quote should be in the article so people can learn what she really said. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:38, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and move. Relationship to current article: a misspelling and misquote of a phrase not even used in the article in its original form ( "A dingo's got my/the baby"). Relationship to fictional band: the exact name used. Misquotes of the phrase are common on the the net, but this particular variant with the plural "Dingoes" seem uncommon outside association with the band. Putting a hatnote on the fictional band page instead would also avoid the very unfortunate positioning at the top of the article on a real-life tragic event.--Melburnian (talk) 13:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It shows an appalling lack of empathy to insist on leaving it there, regardless of how many reasons you can trot out for doing it!
    Dodegroovily, your justification here is to make it very easy for curious people who can't remember what was said, or the names. Your concern is primarily to help really forgetful people. However, when it comes to the article, the living subjects have to be considered, more than those who are idly curious. I put it to you that anyone with a serious reason for wanting the info will have enough information to do a successful search.
    Just try Googling "dingo" and "baby" and it will be there, without the hatnote.
    You accused me of deleting a "fact". I didn't. I deleted a misquote and a link to something which is/can be linked at a different place in the article, the Media section.
    You, Dodegroovily, have nothing to loose. These people have lost a child, and lost years of their lives to suspicion, hatred, persecution and gaol.
    Let us show a little human decency in this matter. Amandajm (talk) 16:41, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Search
      I just did a Google search on the minimum information to find this topic i.e. the words "dingo" and "baby".
      I used the Google search engine for UK, USA and Australia.
      In each instance the words "dingo" and "baby" provided results that pertained directly to the Chamberlain case, and although the case is much in the news at this time, the Wikipedia article rated second to fourth on the list for each search.
      This indicates quite clearly that the page does not require a headnote that reads "Dingoes ate my baby" directs here. The link to the crassly-named band doesn't need to be at the top of the page either. Amandajm (talk) 16:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The quote is only barely a misquote, only two words slightly wrong. To say redirecting a barely misquote is disrespectful ignores the real disrespect floating around the inter webs, like this trash: ([1]), not to mention its tasteless use on Seinfeld and the Far Side comic. I think we're being plenty respectful here. At any rate, I think the best solution is to delete the page on the non-notable fictional band and then you don't need a hatnote. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 17:22, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is. I find the arguments about "disrespect" confusing when the proposed alternative is to point the title instead to a fictional band that was itself named to lampoon this real-world event. I am also confused by the argument that 1) this is so prejudicial that it must be removed from Wikipedia and in defending that statement, a google search shows that the very same terms return the relevant topic.
    The title is clear, points to the logically connected article and helps readers find the content they want. Note that even if these were untrue, WP:NPOV does not apply to redirects (or more specifically, it does not apply in the same way that it does to article titles and content). The arguments above to delete are not based in Wikipedia policy. Rossami (talk) 22:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In May these redirects had over 6000 hits between them (the stats are unfortunately case insensitive), which is a truly massive number for a redirect (we routinely regard redirects with low double-digit hit counts as actively used). It's clear therefore that we need something at this title and the question then becomes what is the primary topic? The only logical choices are the current target, a clearly notable event due at least in part to the massively high-profile international media circus it generated; or a fictional band from a discontinued cult TV series named after the event. All the evidence points, unsurprisingly to the former. Despite this it could be that the redirect is still harmful, and if so that harmfulness will need to be balanced against the above-demonstrated benefits. So is it harmful? WP:RNEUTRAL suggests that it is actually beneficial to have redirects like this because it educates readers that the quote that exists in the popular concsciousness (hence this, not the correct formulation, is the name of the fictional band, for example) is incorrect and gives them the actual quote. Thus any harm is miniscule in comparison with the benefits of enabling thousands of people a month to finx the article they are looking for. Finaly, to use a dictionaric analogy, Wikipedia is descriptive not prescriptive - that is our coverage reflects what is not what shhould be. 82.132.233.104 (talk) 01:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia policy on victimization
    Avoid victimization
    WP:AVOIDVICTIM
    When writing about a person noteworthy only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. This is of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization.
    You see, it really doesn't matter how many people search it wrongly.
    People enjoy sensationalism. People are often crass and insensitive. People who were crass and insensitive hounded and victimiszd the Chamberlain family with stuff like this.
    When this redirect was created, it catered (like the press) to the satisfiction of the lowest common denominator, the people whose suspicions put Lindy Chamberlain in goal, the people whose curiosity had her hounded by the media.
    So now we have a Wikipedia that to the curiosity of the masses like some cheap nasty tabloid, instead of avoiding victimization as per Wikipedia's clearly stated policy.
    Solution is obvious. Make sure that there is a hatnote on the page Dingoes Ate My Baby (band)
    That solves the problem. Amandajm (talk) 06:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I really don't get how this victimizes anyone. The article itself is neutral and fair and accurately describes what happens and reports on the media circus for what it is - a grave injustice.
      But, we're not talking about the article. The policy above does not apply to redirects. In fact, one of the reasons for redirects to exist is so offensive terms can lead to the correct topic without having to include the offensive term in the article. I don't see how this caters to the lowest common denominator. Not knowing the exact quote or the name of the baby doesn't make one the lowest common denominator. In fact, I'm willing to bet that nearly everyone outside Australia known nothing about this case but "dingo ate my baby" as the story didn't have much lasting impact in other countries. This is how these people can find the article and learn the truth, but if they don't find it, they're likely to continue to believe the media's lies. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 06:50, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Dingoes Ate My Baby (band) is now nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dingoes Ate My Baby (band) D O N D E groovily Talk to me 06:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to the above comments.
    Dondegroovily, you say "I really don't get how this victimizes anyone."
    The fact that you "don't get it" is part of the point. I am prepared to take your persistence in retaining it as "good will".
    Now, because you say you "don't get it", I want you to accept my good will in telling you that the mother of the dead child would beyond doubt find it offensive as a recollection of the victimization.
    The Wikipedia statement says: Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization.
    It is clear, from what you have said, that you were not acting intentionally to "prolong victimization".
    But now that you have been alerted to the fact that this may cause great offence to the living subjects of the article, you are now no longer acting unintentionally.
    Please take the word of a person who has counselled others in grief situations. It would offend the mother of the child. She has done nothing whatsoever to deserve offending!
    As I have already pointed out, a person only needs to do a search on "dingo, baby" and they will bring up the article. The "redirect" is superfluous.
    The band doesn't need to be mentioned, and the statement "Dingoes ate my baby" does not need a hatnote.
    As for people not knowing about it outside Australia, it is so well known that the coroner's decision has been world news.
    The death of the child and following case is so well known that even "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" had reference to it.
    Please don't keep insisting on this crassness! I understand that you don't "get it". And I understand that you want to win this dispute. But sometimes you just have to pay attention to someone who does get it! Are you really going to feel right if you win at the risk of hurting the living subjects of the article? Amandajm (talk) 13:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • You've stated your position. Please don't start making your arguments personal. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 14:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not "beyond doubt." You don't know that. You are not Lindy Chamberlain. Don't pretend to know how she feels. I'm pretty sure any grieving person would be offended by that. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 15:00, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is this some sort of a joke?
        Does Wikipedia really concern itself more over an editor trying to make a point very clearly to another editor that they may be exceeding the boundaries of human decency and compassion, than dealing with the issue itself?
        As for it being "not beyond doubt": It may not be "beyond doubt" in the mind of the public who took part in the witch hunt. It may not be beyond doubt to a public who has never seen a domestic dog (Blue Cattle Dog for example) give a rabbit a sharp flick to kill it, then skin it neatly before consuming. It may not be beyond doubt in the mind of a public who see Seventh Day Adventists as people who sacrifice babies, rather than people who run Tuberculosis and Leprosy clinics.
        It is certainly "beyond doubt" in the High Court of Australia that Lindy Chamberlain is innocent. The article needs to respect that fact, and not be arranged in a way that prolongs the ridicule.
        What Lindy said at the time that the child was discovered missing must be quoted in the article, because it is highly relevant.
        However, a misquote that was widely used in sick jokes and numerous parodies of the situation does not belong at the top of the article. Amandajm (talk) 03:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Clarification - it is beyond doubt that Azaria was attacked by dingoes and her parents are innocent of all charges. In is not beyond doubt that the victim will find it offensive. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Hello, did you just refer to Lindy Chamberlain as "victim"? You mean as "victim of the victimisation" , presumably?
            You are right, of course. It is not proved beyond reasonable doubt that Ms Chamberlain and her family might find it offensive.
            So, are you suggesting that Wikipedia leaves potentially victimizing material in articles, just on the off-chance that the victim of the victimization won't be offended? Amandajm (talk) 06:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • comment: You seem to be slighly confused about what we are discussing here. We are not concened with the content of the article (that is a discussion for the article talk page), only whether the very widely known (and highly searched for - see the stats) phrase "dingoes ate my baby" should redirect to the article about the event the phrase refers to. The guiding principle in this is not the guidelines about avoiding victimisation, because that is about article content which is not relevant, but WP:RNEUTRAL, which deals with redirects. According to that long-standing principle, which continues to enjoy widespread consensus, and everything at WP:R#DELETE, which similarly is widely supported, there is no reason to either delete this redirect.or to point it at a different target. The sole purpose of redirects of this nature is to enable people to find the article they are looking for. If what they are looking for is non-neutral, incorrect or disputed then it is the job of the article to educate them about this and redirects from these titles facilitate this. If this redirect did not exist then there is a very high likelihood of a duplicate, probably inferior article being written by someone who was unaware of the existence of the existing article. These provable large benefits far, far outweigh any unprovable slight offence that the subject of the target of the redirect may theoretically take from Wikipedia saying "You looked for X, information about that is in article Y", wbich is no different to saying "You looked for 'Dubya', information about that is at 'George W Bush'". Thryduulf (talk) 09:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  • Retarget to Oz (Buffy the Vampire Slayer). The target band article has been merged there. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:32, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article about the fictional band has been merged there, but the article about the death of Azaria Chamberlain (that the fictional band were named after) has not been. It is the latter which is the primary topic for this search phrase. Thryduulf (talk) 10:09, 8 July 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.

Untwisted

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. Ruslik_Zero 19:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as untwisted is a non-notable project with no actual relevance to Twisted, other than that they both attempt to solve the same problem. —habnabit talk! 21:03, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Untwisted is well known in various technical communities but is now in the process of being merged/renamed back into Twisted, which is why I created the redirect. Enthdegree (talk) 23:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
untwisted is not a fork of Twisted, nor does it implement anything that isn't already included in Twisted, so it getting "merged back" is highly unlikely. It is possible that we are talking about different "untwisted"s, though, as I believe there are multiple projects. I linked the one I was referring to; which are you? —habnabit talk! 17:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —habnabit talk! 04:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — As "Untwisted" is unrelated to "Twisted", and isn't mentioned in the article/target of the redirect. Senator2029 ❝talk❞ 14:04, 18 June 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_June_14&oldid=1091632845"