Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 March 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 28[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 28, 2015.

Sir Jimmy Savile[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. --BDD (talk) 21:10, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Jimmy Savile's knighthood expired when he died. [1] Also, no one will search for this term, because the media and the public no longer refer to him as "Sir Jimmy Savile". Pickuptha'Musket (talk) 21:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Yes, his knighthood expired when he died. The fact that something is incorrect does not make it an unlikely search term. We have, for example, Sir Walter Raleigh, and he died quite a few years ago too. To give someone their honorific after they have died I am not sure is even incorrect, since that is the honorific he had during his lifetime, but certainly, is a likely search term. Si Trew (talk) 21:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That being said, none of these has had any hits lately unless good old groks.se is playing up, but they are not new, and are harmless. Si Trew (talk) 21:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but these requested redirects were declined because of Savile's nature. Pickuptha'Musket (talk) 21:53, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But WP:NOTCENSORED. We have an article on Jack the Ripper, for example — shall we delete that because he was somewhat unsavoury, or Fred West? In the world of fiction, people are constantly coming a cropper in Agatha Christie novels. Whether you or others feel the man was repugnant does not change the facts that he was awarded a knighthood, and people will be looking for this. Si Trew (talk) 20:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep he appears that way in sources (since published sources don't change after they are printed on paper), so whatever the change in current status, it is still a former status, thus a viable search term -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:21, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - personally, I would've said "Savile's knighthood expired when he did" but at any rate, these redirects are harmless, and 65.94 has a good point about paper sources. We're WP:NOTPAPER, but these are all viable search terms based on historic usage. I agree with LukeSurl about not creating the litany of new redirects with all the possible permutations of his former title(s), but for the redirects that have already been made, they're not doing any harm. Ivanvector (talk) 21:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure it's technically correct to say his K expired when he did: at least, his medal didn't. Correct or not, it is a likely search term. I am not sure what the family did with his medal. I presume either buried with him or returned to Her Majesty, but necessarily it was quite a controversial and, subsequently, very private matter (and he had handed out quite a few himself on Jim'll Fix It, but I think they were just cheap I dunno I would guess annealed steel or something). But I am not sure a K expires when the person it was awarded to expires. For if not, every other medal should be returned to the Crown, that was awarded in the war for our honourable soldiers and so on, which patently they are not, yes in theory, the K expires with the person, but people do tend to keep and sell medals (the nearest I got to that was Coinage_Offences_Act_1936, but I am sure there is some name for it, like deltiology is for picture postcards and numismatism is for cards). Si Trew (talk) 21:28, 30 March 2015 (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.

Lead the vote[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 delete. --BDD (talk) 21:08, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a student-run voting initiative at the University of Pennsylvania. There is no reference to it at that target, however, and therefore should be deleted as unhelpful and confusing (especially when it's ambiguous). Tavix |  Talk  20:28, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was wondering about Leading question or Leader of the House of Commons (who, officially but not actually, does lead Members of Parliament to the lobby to vote), both seem somewhat unlikely. The person who counts the vote, such as Returning Officer or Teller (elections), also seem unlikely. Similarly if a vote or bill were printed in leaded type that would seem unlikely. Can't think of a good target for this one. Si Trew (talk) 21:33, 28 March 2015 (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.

List of all people living and dead[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 delete. --BDD (talk) 21:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 February 19#List of every person in the world. Tavix |  Talk  20:03, 28 March 2015 (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.

জলপ্রপাত[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 delete. --BDD (talk) 21:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFOREIGN: "Common words or concepts" are inappropriate foreign-language redirects Tavix |  Talk  19:48, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:NOTDIC Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary. There is no particular affinity for any language for this general concept -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since waterfalls aren't uniquely found in one particular culture. --Lenticel (talk) 00:06, 30 March 2015 (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.

Animalia 101[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 delete. --BDD (talk) 21:06, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as confusing. This used to be an article about an educational organization about animals, but it wasn't notable. Instead of it being deleted, it was redirected to "Animal." I don't think that redirection is helping anyone and, since it isn't mentioned there (or anywhere else), it should be safe to delete it. Tavix |  Talk  19:32, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:RFD#D2 confusing. I realise "101" is almost a stock phrase in the U.S. to mean a basic course of education, but not elsewhere (WP:ENGVAR), and is either not understood elsewhere or used as just jargon without understanding that higher education courses often end (I think) with "101". Might as well redirect it to Room 101 if we are playing that game. Si Trew (talk) 21:02, 28 March 2015 (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.

Richard Cornhill[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 delete. Wizardman 16:42, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nonsense. I wasn't able to find any connection between a "Richard Cornhill" and the Colbert Report. This was redirected to a section called "Wikipedia references" back in March 2009. Even that version of the Colbert Report didn't make any reference to this guy. See here. Tavix |  Talk  19:13, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. It's just possible, but a long stretch, to take it to High Sheriff of Surrey, which lists Reginald de Cornhill and Richard de Maisey (1204), but I think that is stretching it rather. Si Trew (talk) 21:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It was nonsense joke. It was joke on his episode about him starting a show with Alan Colmes and there a lot riffs on it and ended up on Richard Cornhill and said something about check Wikipedia. Cladeal832 (talk) 00:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirects of nonsense jokes, especially those that aren't mentioned at the target, shouldn't be kept. It's not helpful to keep this redirect, especially since the joke was told six years ago. If we had a redirect for every joke that Stephen Colbert has ever told, that number would be in the thousands. On the other hand, if this was mentioned at The Colbert Report, we'd have a reason for keeping it (although I don't think that should happen). Tavix |  Talk  19:45, 31 March 2015 (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.

Bush Presidential Lieberry[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 delete. --BDD (talk) 20:56, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-neutral redirect. Through my research, it looks like the GWB Presidential Center was referred to as a "LIE-berry" by a couple people who disagree with Bush. I couldn't find any notable instances of this usage, however, so it would fall under WP:RNEUTRAL's exception: "redirects that are not established terms and are unlikely to be useful...may be nominated for deletion." Also note that Lieberry is red. Tavix |  Talk  19:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per User:Tavix. While redirects do not have to be neutral, I agree that WP:RNEUTRAL is in play here, since I can't find it used outside of Wikipedia itself. Urban Dictionary has "Lie-berry" and I found this] fairly quickly through a Gsearch for "Lieberry", among others, but I still don't think that is WP:RS. The fact that people pronounce things differently, especially since we have Bushism, is perhaps something to be celebrated (I have dropped aitches and a glottal stop on my T's for example in a cockney accent), but this is simply mocking a Southern drawl. Si Trew (talk) 21:10, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for this phrase having no particular notability, and not being particularly NPOV. Reminds me of a t-shirt I saw with "SHAVE ARE LIBERRIES!" on it but now I can't find a source for that either. Ivanvector (talk) 21:19, 30 March 2015 (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.

United Mujahideen Front of Pattani[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 delete. --BDD (talk) 21:10, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete per WP:RFD#DELETE #2 (confusion) and WP:REDLINK. Bersatu is (or was?) an umbrella group of different Thai Malay separatist groups (PULO, BNPP, a part of BRN), including secular nationalists and (relatively) moderate exponents. It was established in 1989 and has lost influence since the early 2000s, may even be factually dissolved. Barisan Bersatu Mujahidin Patani (BBMP; "United Mujahideen Front of Pattani") on the other hand was founded in 1985 as a radical breakaway of BNPP, adopted a radically Islamist ideology and never joined Bersatu (the umbrella organisation). There are no links between them (except both being separatist and active in the same region). Bersatu is just the Malay word for "united". It is part of the names of many unrelated organisations. There should be a red link until someone writes an article about the United Mujahideen Front of Pattani (BBMP). --RJFF (talk) 17:51, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. You have kinda talked yourself out of your own argument. Since this is useful, perhaps, to an English-speaking audience who are not familiar with Malay, it is the place it should go. It would be useful to add your information at the article, though. We do have, for example, Labour Party (disambiguation), and we don't say that "Labour" just means "work". Si Trew (talk) 21:53, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonTrew: I may not have expressed myself clearly. We are talking about two distinct, unrelated organisations: One is called Bersatu ("Unity") and the other is called Barisan Bersatu Mujahidin Patani ("United Mujahideen Front of Pattani"). They are not linked or related in any way. Redirecting from the name of the one to the other is totally confused and misleading. --RJFF (talk) 12:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with you. Confused me, I assumed it was the same organisation. Delete as WP:RFD#D2 confusing.
  • Delete, it seems like the redirects are so confusing that we've confused Simon. If they're not related in any way, they should be deleted. WP:RFD#D2. Tavix |  Talk  18:02, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, and of course I am not representative of the general WP audience, but I did actually check them, so if they confused me perhaps they are likely to confuse others. Si Trew (talk) 13:18, 30 March 2015 (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.

Ogwb.org[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 delete. Wizardman 16:40, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this is a helpful redirect. I don't think anyone would realistically search this website and expect to be directed to a general biography of Dubya. This website isn't mentioned at the targeted article and it appears to be down. Tavix |  Talk  15:55, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • That makes a little bit more sense. I still don't know where the "o" came from though. However, I feel like a retarget would have some of the same problems, IMO (not mentioned, site isn't used, etc.). Tavix |  Talk  18:48, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The domain is still being used for some of the Bush Center's email accounts. You can see a few here: http://www.bushcenter.org/center/contact-us . I bet that the O stands for Office. From the Gawker article linked by Simon below, it looks like Mr. Bush's email address was (is?) indeed gwb@ogwb.org . - Eureka Lott 22:42, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks like the mystery has been solved. OGWB definitely stands for "Office of George W. Bush." Back to the topic of redirects, is this really needed though? SimonTrew's findings make the domain seem sketchy to me and I also note that the actual domain (and it's variants) are red: bushcenter.org, Bushcenter.org, and BushCenter.org. Tavix |  Talk  22:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I like a good mystery. What gets a bit fishier is doing a WHOIS search for this domain reveals it expires on 27 April, i.e. in about a month.... the IP location is in Virginia... but that's just essentially the ISP which is Amazon.com. The IP address has actually been fairly stable (ten changes over five years) so that means either they have leased it to ten different people, I guess, or that whoever leases it (Amazon is too big to deal with individual DHCP lessors, so I guess they sublet a bank of them to a smaller, more local, ISP) keeps a permanent IP address either because their ISP doesn't bother to cycle them or that they have a leased address... The website registered at the WHOIS is "Shake The Sky Casino", and the link their is to ogwb.org, which doesn't load (no web server, I guess), so what is going on here? Probably Delete, but can't quite say why.... Si Trew (talk) 23:32, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I realise we are interleaving here, but surely George W. Bush's secretary or whatever would not put up an "Office of George W. Bush" site that was asking you to vote against George W. Bush? That doesn't make sense. I don't think it's been set up by any of his political opponents, not suggesting that, but something here does not ring true. Dunno what to do with it. Si Trew (talk) 23:44, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Organization? Si Trew (talk)
Organization of George W. Bush? Seems awkward to me... Tavix |  Talk  21:50, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Opposition? Si Trew (talk) 22:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nah that makes even less sense, unless he kinda opposed himself... which is possible I suppose if you gave him a mirror.... Si Trew (talk) 22:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I think I am right, looks like a campaigning group against him (and not WP:N or WP:RS) e.g. here, and presumably a made-up address. Si Trew (talk) 22:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just did a tracert and to my surprise there is an SMTP server for it, after jumping through Dallas it goes to an anonymous IP but it does get a response from the server at 216.1.228.25:
4 3 ms 3 ms 3 ms xe-7-2-0.cr01.budapest.digicable.hu [94.21.3.130] (Mine out to Budapest)
5 4 ms 3 ms 3 ms cr01.budapesta.rdsnet.ro [213.154.125.65] (Bouncing mine via Romania)
6 21 ms 20 ms 21 ms xr01.frankfurt.rdsnet.ro [213.154.125.49] (and Again)
7 73 ms 21 ms 21 ms ge-3-0.ir1.frankfurt-he.de.xo.net [80.81.192.182] (now we're off to Germany)
8 37 ms 47 ms 37 ms 207.88.15.77.ptr.us.xo.net [207.88.15.77] (And across the Atlantic)
9 124 ms 128 ms 126 ms vb1042.rar3.nyc-ny.us.xo.net [207.88.13.202] (Over to New York now)
10 167 ms 162 ms 163 ms te-3-0-0.rar3.washington-dc.us.xo.net [207.88.12.74] (Down to Washinton)
11 163 ms 163 ms 163 ms te-3-0-0.rar3.atlanta-ga.us.xo.net [207.88.12.9] (...Atlanta)
12 158 ms 162 ms 167 ms 207.88.12.88.ptr.us.xo.net [207.88.12.88] (Dunno)
13 176 ms 168 ms 167 ms 207.88.12.179.ptr.us.xo.net [207.88.12.179] (Dunno)
14 157 ms 159 ms 159 ms 207.88.12.92.ptr.us.xo.net [207.88.12.92] (Dunno)
15 160 ms 163 ms 163 ms ae0d0.mcr1.dallas-tx.us.xo.net [216.156.0.82] (There we are in Dallas)
16 175 ms 172 ms 175 ms 64.245.100.114 (And to nobody's surprise an anonymous IP)
17 152 ms 153 ms 153 ms smtp.ogwb.org [216.1.228.25] (That lands up at their mail server)
Si Trew (talk) 22:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and if you try to send them an email via their website (I am not that stupid) it asks for them to accept that they access all of your details off your machine. Hmmm..... I could set up a false account but can't really be bothered. Obviously a kinda scam site of some kind. Si Trew (talk) 22:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:RFD#D2 confusing, WP:RFD#D5 makes no sense. The website says it is updated whenever time you look at the page info, but that is just because it dynamically feeds the time (which is annoying, rather than when it was actually updated). But actually it doesn't seem to have been updated in a long while. No use to Wikipedia, better off deleted. Striking my Delete above but not to change my opinion, just I don't want it counted twice by accident (I got told off for that before.) Si Trew (talk) 23:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on the possibility that this is a phishing site, given Si's findings and generally the U.S. government's propensity for feeling entitled to spy on anything and everything. *waves to the NSA* Of course my own country is no better. The redirect is also just not generally useful. Ivanvector (talk) 21:23, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no reason to make this so complicated. None of the items shared above offer reasonable evidence to be suspicious about this domain name. What we have determined is that it's operated by the Office of George W. Bush—the website is parked, but it's used for email accounts. In other words, the redirect is harmless. I think the best thing to do is tag it as a {{r from domain name}} and keep it as-is. - Eureka Lott 01:08, 31 March 2015 (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.

Horizontal hold[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 procedural close. (non-admin closure) Tavix |  Talk  21:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have this but not vertical hold, which I think should go to the same section: it's well described there. I'm inclined to create it but would like others' opinions first. in case they think that horiz could go somewhere better. (Below Ivanvector and I have been off topic about old telly, but some good may come of it...) Si Trew (talk) 14:32, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just do it. In fact, I just did it :-D They could arguably go to the subsection "Horizontal hold and vertical hold", but the whole thing's needed to make sense of it I think - David Gerard (talk) 17:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close, please. Thanks, @David Gerard:, I am not sure whether I would have taken it to the subsection, but as it stands it is better than what it was. Si Trew (talk) 21:14, 28 March 2015 (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.

Jett Ruiz[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 delete. Wizardman 16:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It should be deleted, since redirecting the page with the name of a particular professional baseballl team's bullpen catcher to the page with the team name is weird. RekishiEJ (talk) 11:20, 28 March 2015 (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/2015_March_28&oldid=1138580486"