Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 August 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 26[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 26, 2011

HSBC Arena[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 No Consensus. Either way, the reader is provided with navigation to both articles via either a hat note or a disambig page. Additionally this is the wrong venue for move discussions, and discussions about moving the only current HSBC Arena article to this location should be handled at WP:RM. --Taelus (talk) 14:57, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When HSBC Arena (Buffalo) was moved to First Niagara Center, I changed the disambiguation page that was at HSBC Arena into a redirect to the Buffalo article (per my proposed move which had been proposed prior to the name change becoming known). This was done per my contention that the arena in Buffalo is the primary topic for the name. A user changed the redirect without discussion to point instead to the arena in Rio. My original contention does not change just because the Buffalo arena's name has changed; it will take time for the general public to hear about and internalize the name change. Until that time -- or, at the maximum, until the 2016 Olympics in Rio -- the First Niagara Center remains the primary topic for the name "HSBC Arena". Powers T 16:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who made that redirect, seeing that the name "HSBC Arena" now applies unambiguously to one arena with a Wikipedia article, the one in Rio, and that the using the name "HSBC Arena" for the First Niagara Center is now obsolete and, as of now, incorrect. I have included a link to First Niagara Center in the top line of the article for the (currently only) HSBC Arena to redirect people looking for the First Niagara Center. HSBC Arena (Buffalo) still redirects to First Niagara Center, as it will pretty much forever, and I believe that most of the still extant links that refer to the Buffalo arena by the HSBC Arena name use that as the link. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 16:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I agree that the current target is now the prime use. Since we now have only one article with the name 'HSBC Arena' a disambiguation page would be inappropriate. The hatnote on the target will navigate readers looking for the Buffalo arena. The hatnote on First Niagara Center can now be removed as anyone going there will only be looking for the Buffalo arena. Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • How can you possibly say it's the primary usage? The vast majority of English speakers who recognize the name will still know it as the arena in Buffalo and be surprised to learn there's an arena in Rio by the same name. Powers T 22:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because it's the only usage now. Besides, Rio's metropolitan population is about twelve times as much as the Buffalo metro's. We cannot sacrifice factual accuracy (which is what you suggest by redirecting the name of an arena to an arena that no longer uses the name instead of the arena that currently uses the name) just to feed a bias toward English speakers. As of now, HSBC Arena refers to one arena and one arena alone, the one in Rio. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 00:27, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's not the only usage. Just because the official name has changed doesn't mean it's no longer the primary topic. Powers T 02:27, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Pardon me for being semantic, but yes, it is, and in this case, yes, it does. At the very least, it can't be any greater. There is no way you are going to convince me that a major arena that is in a city with a metro population of 14 million is that much less significant than an arena that is in a city with a metro population of one million that doesn't even use the name anymore. At the most, HSBC Arena should be a disambiguation page. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 02:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Popular usage and knowledge does not change instantaneously. If it was the primary usage last week, it's still the primary usage today. Powers T 12:30, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • We're not Urban Dictionary, I don't care what "popular usage" is. If we were going by popular usage the name of the article would be the "Effin' Center" because, judging by the buzz on most of the Web sites out there, that's what people are calling it now. And again, if we want to play the popular card: Rio, 14 million, Buffalo, 1 million. Rio wins. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 13:09, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • That's absurd; we don't count local population to determine popularity -- especially when one of the cities is English-speaking and the other isn't. You're veering into ridiculousness here. I'm sorry you don't care what popular usage is, but Wikipedia as a whole does. Powers T 17:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • This still does not settle the key dispute here-- your contention that the First Niagara Center is so much more intrinsically associated with the name "HSBC Arena" than the HSBC Arena in Rio that it deserves the automatic redirect from HSBC Arena to itself even though it no longer uses the name. The current HSBC Arena is the largest indoor arena in Rio and one of the largest in Brazil; it's a very significant arena in world sport, having previously hosted the Olympics (something that, I think it's safe to say, the First Niagara Center will never do). If this were some small 2,000 seat arena in the backwaters somewhere your argument would hold more water, but it's not. It's also not as if the First Niagara Center has only been known by HSBC Arena for decades: the arena was known as Marine Midland Arena for its first four years and by HSBC Arena for eleven. Corporate sponsored name are transient; they change a lot, and the same goes for the name HSBC Arena. Given the heavy news coverage, most of Western New York knows the arena is the First Niagara Center by now. Like I said, at the very most, there should be a disambiguation page, but the First Niagara Center should not get the automatic redirect from HSBC Arena when there's another arena of comparable importance using the name while the FNC is not. Personally, I'd prefer the redirect stay as is, eventually (although not immediately) moving the article on the Rio HSBC Arena to HSBC Arena, with the top line to direct mistaken readers to the FNC. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 02:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Oh, now wait just a minute. If you're going to pull the longevity argument out, then the arena in Rio has only existed for four years, and has only been "HSBC Arena" for two and a half. Powers T 12:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                      • You totally missed the point. Neither arena has held the "HSBC Arena" name for an exceptionally long period of time (e.g., 20 years). The difference is that Rio's arena is using it now, and an arena that is using it now, especially one of comparable importance, should have at least parity (i.e. a disambiguation page), if not total priority, with the redirect than one that doesn't. And way to ignore the rest of the argument. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 13:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                        • We're just going around in circles. We don't name based on importance; we name based on common usage, and in common English usage, "HSBC Arena" is still "the former name of the First Niagara Center". Common parlance never changes instantaneously. Powers T 14:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                          • You're just repeating an unsourced, unverified, and arguably false claim over and over again without any shred or semblance of evidence! I'm done here, I feel like I'm arguing with a parrot.J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 19:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                            • A parrot, huh? Real civil of you. You're the one looking to change the status quo, so it's you who must provide the evidence that the majority of English speakers are not looking for the arena in Buffalo when "HSBC Arena" is mentioned. Powers T 01:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change (back) to disambiguation page there may be only two HSCB Arenas so far and the "current" one, or the previous may be the most common usage today, but they are both valid uses, and we are writing for the long term. Rich Farmbrough, 23:17, 27 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Move the Rio building to HSBC Arena There are now no Buffalo related links (from article space) to HSBC Arena [1]. I cleaned up about 10 this morning. A hatlink to the Buffalo venue is sufficient. TerminalPreppie (talk) 15:29, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mods, can we get a decision on this one way or another? It's been two weeks since the last comment on this. Thanks. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 13:26, 14 September 2011 (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-Palestinian[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 Retarget as suggested. Ruslik_Zero 16:17, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 July 22#Pro-Palestinian consensus was reached to retarget the "Pro-Palestinian" redirect from "Israeli-Palestinian conflict" to "Palestinian cause". On 14 August 2011 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palestinian cause was closed as "Redirect to Israeli-Palestinian conflict", inadvertently reversing the consensus reached at the RfD regarding the "Pro-Palestinian" redirect (the redirect was not mentioned during the discussion). In subsequent discussion at Talk:Pro-Palestinian#Extract from RFD discussion for future reference it has been suggested that both redirects ("Pro-Palestinian" and "Palestinian cause") would be better targeted at Palestinian nationalism. It was also agreed to initiate a widely-advertised RfD, with notifications to relevant WikiProjects and participants in the AfD and RfD. Best, —Ireilly talk 08:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I guess that what can be added to Palestinian nationalism is a matter for the editors there so your questions are probably best placed on the talk page for that article. I have no real knowledge in this area; my involvement, here, is because some consider that I have some limited expertise in redirect policy. :-) I would just add that there is a page Israel lobby and there could be a role for a parallel Palestinian lobby article but I'll leave that to others to consider. Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and Comment Didn't know this article existed. A fair - though IMO - unnecessary re-direct. As far as Carol's concerns go, those sorts of questions don't belong here. WikifanBe nice 14:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, but I'll copy them to relevant page, since redirect seems to be getting support. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - would have suggested it at the AfD myself if I knew the page existed! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, and yeah that's a much better target for both anyway. Good call. Thanks for the note. Nightw 17:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "Palestinian nationalism" covers both of these topics extremely well. There is no need for three topics on the same subject, two of which are just propaganda. --GHcool (talk) 16:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose one can be a pro-Palestinian without being a Palestinian nationalist. "Palestinian cause" on the other hand is likely to have a more specific interpretation than the target page, and one which varies over time. Rich Farmbrough, 23:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
    • Regarding "pro-Palestinian", this is true but there is relevant content for people searching on this term at Palestinian nationalism whereas there is none at Israeli-Palestinian conflict, so although not ideal for everybody the proposed target will be ideal to some rather than the current one which is ideal for nobody. Regarding "Palestinian cause", we have {{R with possibilities}} and similar for exactly these situations. Thryduulf (talk) 08:37, 28 August 2011 (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 (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

John MacLennan Buchanan[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 Keep "John MacLennan Buchanan", retarget "John M. Buchanan" to John Buchanan (disambiguation). Thryduulf (talk) 10:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Currently the main page for John Buchanan is a page about a local Canadian politician named John MacLennan Buchanan. The disambiguation page c lists twenty-four individuals bearing the name John Buchanan, twenty of whom have active Wikipedia articles. None of these individuals appears to have a significantly higher global name recognition than the others. Furthermore, more John M. Buchanan is not sufficiently disambiguated to redirect back to current main page. In accordance with Wikipedia policy, I propose John MacLennan Buchanan redirect be deleted, John Buchanan be moved to John MacLennan Buchanan, and both John Buchanan and John M. Buchanan redirect to John Buchanan (disambiguation)MTS Peanut (talk) 06:55, 26 August 2011 (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/2011_August_26&oldid=1138577650"