Talk:Butcher of the Balkans (disambiguation)

Duplicate
This article was created too soon and now we have two virtually identical pages. This DAB and Butcher of the Balkans proper. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:38, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You failed to check first before changing the redirect to a disambig - otherwise you could have redirected to this disambiguation page instead. When the closer said a hatnote and disambig were in order, I'm pretty sure he meant to keep the redirect and have the disambig as a separate page. Without the redirect, there is no reason for a hatnote. Ego White Tray (talk) 19:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You could be right but I am sure it wasn't properly settled. I mean it is misuse of a disambiguation - plaster a label onto one individual and deem the usage secondary when it is applied to others. There is more to discuss here. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 19:32, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, I reverted your latest contribution but I didn't actually perform the original task. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 19:33, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2013_April_2#Butcher_of_the_Balkans The result of the discussion was Keep. A disambiguation and a hatnote would probably not be out of order.] - this is vague. Discussion ended without full consensus. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 19:36, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep explicitly means don't change the redirect. Disambiguation can be at another page. The conclusion seems clear to me. Ego White Tray (talk) 19:44, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, let's see what happens as other users that contributed catch on one by one. I don't know, so the next 48 hours should be interesting. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 20:05, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

The redirect is unwarranted. From this article's contents its apparent that it fails to take any consideration of the evidence at the Buther of the Balkans talkpage or at the Ante Pavelić talkpage. -- ◅ PRODUCER  ( TALK ) 21:08, 13 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Quite so. In the course of the discussion, Thryduulf stated that the link is helpful because people familiar with term but not the target could enter the text and find the answer. This had been when we only knew of one target. Within a short time the figure became three. Now unlike DABs which support an article of the same name (eg. Jordan and Jordan (disambiguation), it totally defeats the object when a "redirect" pipes through to one target whilst a secondary "disambiguation" page lists both the target and the other potential items. I say this in reponse to the point by Thryduulf. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 23:18, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, nearly everyone agreed that Milosevic is called this way more than the other two people. That would make him primary topic for this name, meaning that the name without "disambiguation" should redirect there. As far as a redirect going to one target and a separate disambiguation page, this is quite common, seen at Danzig and Danzig (disambiguation). Ego White Tray (talk) 02:26, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Everyone agreed before anyone actually bothered to do research into who the term could also refer to and how frequent that reference is. Look at the Google results provided at the Buther of the Balkans talkpage, this claim that "Milosevic is called this way more than the other two people" simply does not stand. An even more refined test of "mladic "Butcher of the Balkans" -wikipedia -milosevic" (45,800) and "milosevic "Butcher of the Balkans" -wikipedia -mladic" (55,100) proves this. I see Pavelic is still in place in spite of no response to the Ante Pavelić talkpage. -- ◅  PRODUCER  ( TALK ) 04:08, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the discussion, Ego White Tray's observation that "nearly everyone agreed Milošević is called this way more than the other two making him primary topic" is inaccurate. I initially favoured its deletion. I switched direction when reading comments supporting the proposal to keep and then further investigation by other users suddenly made mincemeat of the ambition. The turning point came here when the discussion submitter acknowledged sources leading to more targets. After that there was only dissensus with only Thryduulf continuing to support the idea of making Milošević key target. PRODUCER, Antidiskriminator and I favoured a single page being a disambiguation. I think the source of your confusion is that we all agreed Milošević tops the list. When dealing with labels, we don't simply select to whom a term applies most according to sources and fire it in that direction and promote others to "disambiguation" level. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 05:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore, Danzig is Gdańsk. It is the German name for the city and was even a name by which it was known in English during the Free State period. All secondary uses of the word directly refer to that city so the arrangement is correct. Not the same thing when dealing with a sobriquet which in turn defies multiple persons. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 05:10, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I can see your point. I just retargeted Butcher of the Balkans here. Anything else at this point is uncontroversial technical issues. Ego White Tray (talk) 15:23, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated EWT. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 17:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I have undone these changes. Maybe I could have been even more specific in my close, but it was clear that Butcher of the Balkans should have remained pointing where it did. I simply added that it would not be inappropriate to create a disambiguation page (this one) and provide a hatnote on Slobodan Milošević as was done. I recognize that you disagree with the outcome of the discussion at the RfD Evlekis, but that does not mean it is appropriate for you to undo the results of that discussion, and on a discussion on a completely different page. ~ Amory ( u  •  t  •  c ) 17:35, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Two things Amorymeltzer, 1) it was not I who first or last "undid", 2) there is no consensus for this arrangement. So much so that it is nonsensical per the very argument Thryduulf used when I favoured deletion and nobody had yet spotted the others. This requires more discussion. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 19:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know where you're getting "no consensus" from. ~ Amory ( u  •  t  •  c ) 22:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You first have six in support of keeping the redirect (with no disambiguation being mentioned and no research whatsoever being done into the possible alternative people that the term may also apply to) and two in support of deleting it. Then I "boldly", as a user notes, turned the redirect into a disambiguation page based on the research conducted. Then another support for deletion was thrown in and then I supported to keep it (the article), opposing any deletion. In any case, voting is not a substitute for conducting research which evidently shows that the term is not as predominant in use for Milosevic as some would like to claim. Again see the Buther of the Balkans talkpage and the refined test of "mladic "Butcher of the Balkans" -wikipedia -milosevic" (45,800) and "milosevic "Butcher of the Balkans" -wikipedia -mladic" (55,100). -- ◅ PRODUCER  ( TALK ) 01:13, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

So whatevever the status quo. There requires fresh discussion. It may not be a bad suggestion to alert the editors that voted prior to developments, their views will certainly be interesting but like I said - a DAB for the multiple faces that bare a label and a raw unmodified page of the same name firing straight to the target achieving most results on Google is a debasement of purpose. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 02:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I've brought the matter up at User talk:Amorymeltzer. We had discussion about the disambiguation page at the RfD and in seven days it did not produce a result where there's a consensus that Milošević is a primary topic. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 07:05, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Joy. I won't make add any comments to Amory's talk page as I'm sure you two as admins know what you are doing and can handle the issue. If anything needs clearing up, I'll continue to post on this discussion page. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 07:37, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

JFTR it's been moved to Deletion review/Log/2013 April 19. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 19:38, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Independent State of Croatia
I changed Independent State of Croatia to Nazi-controlled Croatia because this state was unquestionably not independent. The only reason we should repeat the Nazi's lies are to say that they are lies. Ego White Tray (talk) 16:03, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It should be fine either way. To be honest, the issue at hand is slightly different. Whilst the entity was very much NDH, the question of whether the term should be used is down to the WP community's preference for de jure over de facto and this tends to be Yugoslavia. Strange I admit, the kingdom fled in 1941 and the Partizan state was not formulated until 1943 and even then there was three years of co-existence with the remnants of the old country. Anyhow, this favoured presentation I have to be honest is POV because it has a penchant for League of Nations going over to United Nations recognition, in other words, it follows the proposed entities of those fighting on the side of the allies. In reality, the world was split during WWII and international order had evidently collapsed. As for NDH being a Nazi satellite, it is pretty much the same for Eastern European countries after WWII when orders ultimately came from Moscow. So how you phrase the set has to take a lot into consideration to paint the full picture. Thanks. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 17:1
 * I used "Nazi-controlled" since I wanted anyone reading the page to understand why he was called a "butcher" without having to read the article, and the "Nazi" name does the trick quite well and is also accurate. I trimmed the description you put it, but also mentioned that he was fascist, which should also cover it. Ego White Tray (talk) 12:37, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 21:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Butcher of the Balkans (disambiguation) → Butcher of the Balkans – I've explained how there's no proof Milošević is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Butcher of the Balkans" at Deletion review/Log/2013 April 19 most recently. This is a reasonably simple idea that hasn't actually been opposed by anyone else's policy-based arguments. (This is now the third process we're employing to get that done. Hopefully there won't have to be a fourth.) -- Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 21:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Support per previous arguments and evidence. -- ◅ PRODUCER  ( TALK ) 19:32, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.