< September 26
September 28 >

September 27

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 27, 2016.

President Nixon

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. --BDD (talk) 13:05, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As with President Obama to Barack Obama, et al. this redirect should be retargeted to Richard Nixon. ‪Mitchumch‬ disagreed and went on to revert my revert of his, hence why I resorted here instead of retargeting the redirect myself. As far as I can tell, most people searching for President X are looking for the president's article rather than their presidency's. --Nevé–selbert 23:45, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To address Prisencolin's point, the better solution is to retain the redirect and place a Wikipedia:Hatnote at the top of both article pages to address WP:SIMILAR and Wikipedia:Primary topic. Example,
This page is about the biography of Richard Nixon. For his Presidency, see Presidency of Richard Nixon.
Or,
This page is about the biography of Richard Nixon. It is not to be confused with Presidency of Richard Nixon.
consequently, I restored the hatnote to "Presidency of Richard Nixon" article and added a hatnote to the biography article.
To address Roman Spinner's point, of the six articles you listed only Secretary Clinton has an actual WP:CONSPLIT article - Hillary Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State. That article also needs to have its WP:REDIRECT corrected. The other five articles you listed don't have WP:CONSPLIT that solely focuses upon their careers (or anything else from what I can see). Do you have any other evidence to support the claim, "... these standard redirect forms have always pointed to the person"? I've only known redirects to point to their primary topic.
A question for Neve-selbert. You stated, "As far as I can tell, most people searching for President X are looking for the president's article rather than their presidency's." Could you please provide links to what you've seen to support this claim. Thanks. Mitchumch (talk) 10:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As a further comment regarding Mitchumch's raising of the WP:CONSPLIT issue, it may be noted that while Secretary Clinton is the only one (among the six names that I listed) to have a consplit, since the other names do have substantially-sized articles, the argument could also be made for {R to section} WP:TARGETed redirects: William Bligh#The voyage of Bounty (or even redirecting Captain Bligh to Mutiny on the Bounty), William Tecumseh Sherman#Civil War service, Alvin York#World War I, Chester W. Nimitz#World War II and Timothy M. Dolan#Elevation into the College of Cardinals. On the subject of Hillary Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State, it may be noted that, in addition to Secretary Clinton, there is Senator Clinton, which also redirects to Hillary Clinton, but also presents the example of another consplit, United States Senate career of Hillary Rodham Clinton (the only other "Senator Clinton" was the equally notable [in his era] DeWitt Clinton who served [for one year and eight months] more than 200 years ago). —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 09:46, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Roman Spinner The only reason the six names were listed was to demonstrate an ongoing practice, a type of precedent, to demonstrate the need to employ the practice with the article Richard Nixon. Since five articles don't have WP:CONSPLIT they aren't useful for your argument. The article Hillary Clinton is another dubious example. The redirect Secretary Clinton was created on 10:04, 28 March 2009‎ and the article Hillary Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State was created on 11:23, 7 November 2009 - eight months after the creation of the redirect. The redirect history for Secretary Clinton only has six edits. Not one edit addresses changing the redirect to any other article. As stated above, it should've been fixed years ago, but never was.
Lastly, presenting theoretical scenarios with {R to section} WP:TARGETed redirects doesn't support the initial purpose for stating the six articles in the first place - as examples of a precedent. If that scenario was applied site wide, it would allow editors to redirect away from the WP:Primary topic causing confusion in the process. However, I'm still open to proof of a precedent. Mitchumch (talk) 13:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted the tag on the Richard Nixon article as I felt it might divert readers away from the main article (RN) without giving that FA a try. A discussion has ensued at Talk:Richard Nixon. I concur with the redirect to Richard Nixon. The reader is seeking info on the person, not necessarily the official actions. Or the searcher may just have forgotten Nixon's first name.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:23, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Neve-selbert:@Champion:@Lenticel:@Wehwalt:@Patar knight:@Drdpw: Since all of you are making similar arguments for your position, then I want to address all of you as a group. The point that Prisencolin made is the biggest error that all of you have made in your position. You all think you know what a reader or editor is looking for when they enter a search term into Wikipedia. None of you have mind reading abilities. Consequently, you need to accept that, at best, we can only alert readers to an article they may be searching for. Redirects have routinely directed readers to articles that don't have WP:CONSPLIT. But, once a WP:CONSPLIT has occurred a redirect may become an article OR those redirects need to reflect the WP:Primary Topic. Otherwise, you'll create Wikipedia:Disambiguation issues throughout the Wikipedia site.
Here's another possible solution to this issue. Change the redirect President Nixon page into a Disambiguation page and let the reader decide what they want. I think this is more labor intensive solution than placing a hatnote at the top of the Richard Nixon article, but this possible solution doesn't presume anyone can read minds. Mitchumch (talk) 13:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Patar knight: Prior to this discussion I would have agreed with you. That's why I didn't add a hatnote to the Richard Nixon article when I added a hatnote to the Presidency of Richard Nixon on 11:56, 30 December 2012. However, this discussion has made it clear that people have confused the biographical article of Rich. Nixon for his Presidency article. Consequently, the addition of a hatnote to the Richard Nixon article is now needed in order to rectify this confusion. Prisencolin thinks it's possible that some searching for President Nixon may be looking for Presidency of Richard Nixon and so do I. What's the possibility others will think the same way? Mitchumch (talk) 13:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"President Nixon" refers to a person, not a time period. It's also standard in American political discourse to continue to refer to someone by their highest office after they have left office (e.g. President Bush, Senator Santorum, Governor Romney, Secretary Clinton etc.), which shows that the term <Title>+<Person> refers more to the person than their time in said office. Anyone who ends up on the Nixon page and wants to learn about the presidency can use the table of contents to navigate to the relevant section, which is quite good, and might be all they want. If they want more, there is the hatnote at the top of the section.
On the other hand, if someone is searching "President Nixon" expecting the person and wants to learn about say their early life or his post-presidential life, they will find nothing on those areas on the Presidency page, and would be forced to click through the hatnote. It would then seem that more readers would be satisfied with a redirect to the biography page then the presidency page. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:10, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Patar knight: Your first paragraph is a good point. The second paragraph allows for disambiguation issues. As an example, look at the 23 redirects for Harry S. Truman. Of the 23 redirects 8 are connected to his presidency. There is a Presidency of Harry S. Truman article with no redirects. Here are those 8 redirects:
And the last redirect isn't linked to the general article. It's linked to the subsection "Presidency" in the Harry S. Truman article. That subsection section or Template:r to section was added on 18:49, 24 September 2016 by the editor that initiated this discussion. Is this what you had in mind?
"President Truman", "33rd President", "President Harry Truman", "HST (president)", and "President Harry S. Truman" all refer to the person and are fine; "Truman administration" and "Presidency of Harry Truman" refer to the presidency and should be redirected as such. The first group of redirects should point at the page in general, not the section, due to reasons mentioned above in my previous post. The Truman/Truman presidency page isn't a good example, given that it was only created last month.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:33, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Patar knight: I didn't know that article was recently created. I can accept the argument that "President" is an honorific title for a person and thus must redirect towards that persons biographical article, not a subsection of the biographical article. Is it possible to capture this argument on the Wikipedia:Redirect page in the WP:RPURPOSE section? It doesn't have to be specific to Presidents, but in general to all honorific titles. Also, Neve-selbert do you disagree with this argument and are prepared to revert this edit 18:49, 24 September 2016 based on the preceding argument by Patar knight? Mitchumch (talk) 16:33, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would consider redirects of this type to be included under the first bullet point: "Alternative names (for example, Edison Arantes do Nascimento redirects to Pelé) redirect to the most appropriate article title." ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:22, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken about the President Harry S. Truman redirect, Mitchumch. I've reverted the edit.--Nevé–selbert 09:35, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Patar knight: I would agree slightly that it would be an "alternative name". Pele is a nickname and not an honorific title like Duke, Duchess, or President. How about amending the alternative name section with "Alternative names (for example, Edison Arantes do Nascimento redirects to Pelé) or names with honorific titles (for example, President Ronald Reagan redirects to Ronald Reagan) redirect to the most appropriate article title." Mitchumch (talk) 22:05, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I do think that there is a fundamental difference between something like President Truman versus President Harry S. Truman. For starters, as Wehwalt states (above), many people could have just (in the heat of the moment) have merely forgotten the first name of the 33rd President of the USA, whereas with the latter redirect this would be pretty impossible. Searching for "President Harry S. Truman" rather than the less clunky "Harry S. Truman" must mean that whomever is searching for the former is most likely looking for information about Truman's presidency in particular. If you decide to look a little deeper into the edit history, I did initially attempt to have the redirect retargeted to Presidency of Harry S. Truman, but Drdpw reverted me with a rather sound and reasonable rationale, so I thought I might just go about a compromise and retarget the redirect to Harry S. Truman#Presidency. Still the same article, so that if anyone would rather read about say Truman's early and later life they can simply either scroll up or scroll down. President Nixon is a whole new ball game, I reckon. It is as much an alias for Richard Nixon following his presidency as Sir Mix-a-Lot is for Anthony Ray following the height of his career back in the '90s, in my humble opinion.--Nevé–selbert 00:52, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We should use the ordinary meaning of search terms and avoid reading meaning into them where there's no evidence. While using <Title>+<Last name> is perhaps more common, <Title>+<First and last name> is also a common way of referring to a person, and not just to refer to their time in that office. Per my reasoning above on why redirecting to a "presidency of" page for redirects that clearly refer to people is less optimal than targeting the person's biography, targeting a presidency section is similarly suboptimal. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:47, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. I've undone my edit at President Ronald Reagan.--Nevé–selbert 09:35, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"President Reagan" and "President Ronald Reagan" are indisputably alternative names for Ronald Reagan, and are so in a fashion clearer than that of Pele. I'm not sure there's a reason to favour this kind of alternate name over other types (of which there are many). ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:47, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Patar knight's reasoning in the first paragraph. In the second paragraph, it won't hurt to add different classes of "alternative names" to the redirect page, but can help. Also, stating different types of alternative names in no way favors one over any other type of name. Wikipedia policies and guidelines exist, in part, to assist editors in their work. Had such wording existed prior to this discussion, it is possible this discussion could have been avoided. All editors do not posses mirror images of each others understanding or interpretation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Mitchumch (talk) 20:28, 30 September 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.

W. T. Wallace

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. --BDD (talk) 13:12, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect seems to be completely unneeded. The name is very popular and subject not widely recognizible. In this case, it is costly. Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 22:22, 27 September 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.

Gunnersaurus Rex

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 as most plausible outcome from discussion below. Deryck C. 15:27, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Club mascot, not mentioned at the target article. I don't really know enough about English football mascots to know if it really should be or not; I see no mention or redirect for Tottenham's mascot, Chirpy. The mascot is included at List of association football mascots, but I don't think a redirect there would be very helpful. No other mascot names redirect there. Let's figure out consensus one way or another. --BDD (talk) 20:23, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 20:25, 27 September 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.

50 Greatest Gunners

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. 15:25, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The results of a fan poll from 2009, this list was almost immediately turned into a redirect. Well meaning, but it should've just been deleted. There's no mention of the poll at the target article. --BDD (talk) 20:18, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 20:25, 27 September 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.

Storm of epic proportions

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.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:11, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This phrase could be applied to various large storms, both real, fictional, and hypothetical. It seems like an unlikely search term and is a recent creation. BDD (talk) 17:47, 27 September 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.

Man heads into space

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.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:11, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recently created and too vague. It could also refer to Human spaceflight, Yuri Gagarin, etc. Not a likely search term. BDD (talk) 17:45, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a phrase, so I'm assuming it's a book, song or film title, like Man bites dog or Dog bites man. Why else would someone search for this? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:44, 1 October 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.

Annie Bonar Law

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. --BDD (talk) 13:09, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is an unlikely search term (only renders 3 results in Google Books). She is also hardly mentioned at Bonar Law, referred to only once in the #Business career section. --Nevé–selbert 19:57, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would be pretty easy to spin off the last two paragraphs in "Business career" to a section or subsection titled "Family" or "Personal life" and retarget the information there (and possibly add an anchor). ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:38, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The misconception that Bonar Law's surname is "Bonar Law" is very common – our Wikipedia article even corrects this assumption with a hatnote – and reliable sources get it wrong too [3]. I would keep the redirect and create Annie Pitcairn and Annie Pitcairn Robley as ((R from spouse)) as well. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:38, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weird. I'll just leave this decision to others. --BDD (talk) 17:52, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bonar Law is one of (the only?) few cases where the most common way of referring to someone is by middle name + last name. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:08, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Someone going by their middle + last name is probably more common than you give credit for. People like Paul McCartney and Mitt Romney use their middle name, it's just not common knowledge. That's probably the difference between these people and Bonar Law, where it is common knowledge that it's his middle name, and perhaps that feeds the misconception. -- Tavix (talk) 20:36, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Still lacking evidence what Annie's common names are. I don't see where she would add her husbands middle name? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:44, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the idea is that "Bonar Law" is mistaken for a double-barrelled name, right? --BDD (talk) 13:19, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Right. People use names like "Mitt Romney" all the time, but are under no delusions that it is a surname in and of itself, unlike what happens a lot with Bonar Law. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:33, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So keeping Anne Bonar Law would be like keeping a redirect for Ann Mitt Romney. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:13, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, because people don't think that Mitt Romney's surname is "Mitt Romney" because it's just as standard to refer to him as "Romney" (provided the context distinguishes him from the father). In Bonar Law's case, references to Bonar Law frequently use "Bonar Law" as if it was a surname (e.g. [4], [5]). ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:48, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 16:04, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It would help if there were books or news articles that use "Mrs. Bonar Law" or "Annie Bonar Law". So far, nothing. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:29, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the link above [6], there's plenty from just the first page of quick Google/Google Books search: [7], [8], [9] (last one not about this "Mrs. Bonar Law", but the wife of a descendant of Bonar Law). ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:28, 4 October 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.

Raymond Chen (Microsoft)

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, default to keep. Deryck C. 15:26, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect does not lead to information about its title. Codename Lisa (talk) 16:25, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, we should have an article or at least a short section about him in the long run. He is referred to often enough in computer journals and in the community to have established some (mild) notability.
The reason why I think we should keep the redirect even now is because we already have an article about another Raymond Chen (a judge) and quite a few internal references to Microsoft's Raymond Chen, and I therefore think it is important to distinguish between them. A redirect to a related topic already allows reverse lookup of articles where he is cited/mentioned - and it thereby aids research and helps to further build the web. (The same could be achieved with red links, of course, but red links are likely to be removed from author-link= parameters by some editors who don't understand that they already serve a purpose.)
BTW. We do similar things also in a number of other cases I am aware of, f.e. to distinguish between multiple Michael Swaines. Of course, this makes sense only in cases, were we will likely have more info about a person in the future or where it could easily happen but is absolutely important not to mix up one person with another of the same name.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 18:45, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You added pseudo-info. It still doesn't offer any info on the subject. Visitors who visit this link are no more informed after the visit. Also, there no policy requiring us to have a link for everything that exists. In fact we have the opposite: WP:REDLINK. By the way, there are two Raymond Chens in Microsoft. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 08:55, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've been an MVA with an NDA? That's impressive. Now, which of the two Raymond Chens in Microsoft are you referring to? (Did you know that there are two of them?) —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 08:55, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 16:04, 27 September 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.

Guy Sims Fitch

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 October 4#Guy Sims Fitch

Japoa

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 creation of JAPOA as suggested in this RfD can be decided upon by editors at their discretion provided an entry is added to the proposed target. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:30, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what this is supposed to mean. A google does not link this term to Japan. I could not find any notable usage of this. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 04:29, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This might be okay to redirect [10] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:32, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The presence of a word within urban dictionary doesn't make its creation as a redirect vandalism.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 03:19, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=japoa
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.
More