Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 March 4

Boston → Boston (disambiguation)
The result of the debate was target to Boston, Massachusetts. — freak([ talk]) 04:46, Mar. 11, 2007 (UTC) This is more to get the latest round of edit warring ended on where this redirect should point and is not to delete the redirect. As the history indicates, this article's location has alternated from Boston, Massachusetts, Boston, Lincolnshire, and Boston (disambiguation) with a majority of the time spent at the US city. I'm also not suggesting where the redirect should go in this nomination just reflecting where it is currently pointing as I type this rfd out. Bobblehead 18:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Target to Boston, Massachusetts, as that is obviously what most people will be searching for. Yes, obviously. --- RockMFR 20:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Target to Boston, MA per RockMFR. John Reaves (talk) 23:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Target to Boston, Massachusetts per RockMFR, obviously. --CapitalR 00:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Similar articles about big cities in the USA only refer to the city, and not the state name (i.e., Philadelphia, and Chicago.) Move the Boston, Massachusetts page to Boston. AEMoreira042281 00:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This isn't a move request. It's where you think the redirect should point not where the article itself should be located. --Bobblehead 01:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This should absolutely go straight to the disambiguation page, as Boston is also the name of an extremely famous rock group whose article is almost impossible to locate on Wikipedia through any other means.--Badmuthahubbard 09:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This should redirect to Boston, Massachusetts. See the interwiki links - in most other wikipedias, the article Boston describes the american city. It is far more known and important than other Bostons, including the "original" one it was named after. IMHO, this would be the best solution for en.wp, too. --Magadan ?!  13:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 *  Target to Boston (disambiguation) , and let each visitor decide what he means. To target Boston, Massachusetts is to bring in POV since there are so many uses of "Boston". Usual US usage, in my experience, is city, state anyway, since even in the USA names tend to be reused extensively. SMeeds 15:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Target to Boston, Mass., as it would be the intended target for a vast majority of people searching "Boston." I am all for fighting systemic bias on Wikipedia, but having the redirect target Boston, MA seems to be the most common sense option here.  young  american  (ahoy hoy) 15:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Target to Boston, Mass., by far the most intended target. --Golbez 23:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Target to Boston, Massachusetts. The purpose of redirects is to make searching for and finding articles easier.  I think its safe to say most people will be looking for Boston, MA.  -- Black Falcon 05:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Surely, Black Falcon, your statement is self-contradictory. Redirection to Boston (disambiguation) makes it easier to find any use of "Boston". I wouldn't argue with the suggestion that out of those looking for "Boston", more are looking for "Boston (Massachusetts)" than anything else, but surely WP needs to support minority searches as well as majority ones. SMeeds 11:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not believe it to be self-contradicting. As you have noted, redirecting to Boston (disambiguation) makes it easier to find any use of Boston.  However, I think most people will be looking for one particular use of Boston, namely Boston, Massachusetts.  Consider "Paris" for instance.  How likely is it that someone who types "Paris" in the search field will be looking for Paris, Idaho or Paris (genus)?  -- Black Falcon 18:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Target to Boston (disambiguation), per User:Bobblehead. Jhamez84 16:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Per me? I said in the nomination that I didn't have an opinion on where it points (I could care less). The only reason why I put Boston (disambiguation) in the header was because at the time I made the request that's where the redirect was pointed. An hour after I made the nomination User:G-Man changed the redirect to point to Boston, MA. --Bobblehead 01:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Target to Boston (disambiguation) per SMeeds and Bobblehead. --Noira 18:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Target to Boston, Massachusetts, per above. See Seattle. --Lukobe 19:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Target to Boston, Massachusetts, Clearly the primary meaning. G-Man  * 21:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know what's wrong with me, but when I hear Boston, I think of the band before the city. But I concur with all the other votes, so 'Target to Boston, Massachusetts. JuJube 08:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Target to Boston (disambiguation) per SMeeds, Bobblehead, Jhamez84, and Noira.  DDStretch    (talk)  15:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Target to Boston, Massachusetts. Should have been moved, in my opinion. -- Groggy Dice T | C 15:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Target to Boston, Massachusetts per above. This should not even be worthy of discussion. I believe that it should be the location of the article, but I understand there is opposition to such a move. -- Dhartung | Talk 20:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Target to Boston, Massachusetts per above. Major world city versus relatively small backcountry namesake town versus various obscure places and meanings. Not even a contest; at least 90% of all people who type in "Boston" are looking for the major world city, and we should help them find it. —Cuiviénen 22:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Target to Boston, Massachusetts per WP:DAB#Primary topic. See the example on how we handle Rome.  This is exactly the same thing putting little in doubt.  ju66l3r 05:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Target to Boston, Massachusetts. This shouldn't even be an argument. Boston, MA is by far the most common use of the word "Boston." The band isn't an issue as it applies mostly to a specific generation, rather than all people. Same goes for Boston, England. Outside of Lincolnshire, no one associates Boston with the English town, but rather the American city that is a major international center of education, biotech, finance, and famous for its history. The Oxford American Dictionary defines "Boston" as "a city in eastern Massachusetts, the capital of the state, on Massachusetts Bay; pop. 589,141. It was founded c. 1630 by the Massachusetts Bay Company under its governor, John Winthrop (1588–1649). Boston was the scene of many disturbances that led to the American Revolution at the end of the 18th century." No other definition is offered...i think it's pretty clear what the redirect page should point to. Lexicon506 22:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I take issue with the claim that "Outside of Lincolnshire, no one associates Boston with the English town", as it is not, in my own direct experience, true. I also fail to see how this claim can be verified without engaging in new research. It should therefore not form a strong part in the deliberations that are made as to what to do here. I also fail to see why the "Oxford American Dictionary" (my emphasis) should be used as a good authoritative source here, as its name is suggestive of issues discussed in WP:POV (see section on biased writing, for that is what it is in the context of the discussion here.)  DDStretch    (talk)  01:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Target to Boston (disambiguation). As noted, above, the rock group is almost impossible to locate without that.  But, further, the discussion shouldn't be here.  It should be at Talk:Boston.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 01:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Target to Boston, Massachusetts. What part of Boston (band) is so hard? AaronSw 13:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised that you (AaronSw) altered the page Boston earlier today from what it currently was whilst the discussion here is still in progress. This would mean that the RFD notice would no longer seen by ordinary users typing in the link Boston. This would have the effect that fewer people could see the notice and thus have the opportunity to be alerted and comment here. So, I've reverted it.  DDStretch    (talk)  14:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what part of "Do you want the town or the band" is so hard. Everyone's arguing as to which town people want and ignoring the other use(s).  I'm personally not even a fan, but as a casual user, I knew no other way to look up a band than to type the name of the band in the search page.  In reality I find it hard to believe that very many people want the town, but I'm content with a disambiguation link.--Badmuthahubbard 00:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Target to Boston, Massachusetts. I couldn't believe wikilinking to Boston led to a "we don't know where to redirect" page. Paris and London don't go to disambiguation whether you want the Texas and Ontario cities.--Boffob 18:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Target to Boston, Massachusetts. Boston, Massachusetts is going to need a disambiguation link at the top of the article anyway. 140.247.183.124 01:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * target to Boston, Massachusetts. The established practice on Wikipedia is to redirect to one article if it is by far the most likely, and the put the Boston redirects here, for other uses see Boston (disambiguation) notice at the top of the article.Tommy11111 04:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This should absolutely target to Boston, Massachusetts. The established practice on Wikipedia is to redirect to one article if it is by far the most likely, and the put the Boston redirects here, for other uses see Boston (disambiguation) notice at the top of the article.


 * I an a uber user of Wikipedia, and I typed "Boston" because I wanted to find the band of that name. I expected to be taken to the NA city and use the link to the disambiguation page to find the band, and whose lead singer died today.


 * Instead I am dismayed that I found this discussion. The discussion on the "Boston redirect" page goes back to 2004! Can't we decide and be done? Endless debate is not productive.


 * As I type this there are 20 votes here for "Boston, Massachusetts" and 5 votes for "Boston (disambiguation)". That should end it. 80% want a search for "Boston" to go to the "Boston, Massachusetts" page with the disambiguation link.


 * Nwbeeson 12:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Target to Boston, Massachusetts. I am happy to accept a redirect to Boston, Massachusetts as long as there is a link from there to Boston (disambiguation), bearing in mind that no such link existed until I put one there on 26th February 2007. SMeeds 23:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Target to Boston, Massachusetts. Happy St. Patty's day! -- Kendrick7talk 02:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Anti-globalization movement and the Middle East → Anti-globalization and antisemitism
The result of the debate was no consensus. John Reaves (talk) 22:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC) offensive redirect; would repoint to Anti-globalization but there's no content there on the middle east -- Kendrick7talk 19:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * I'm not sure how a reasonable person would conclude that the redirect is offensive if the destination article's title is not. Nevertheless, keep because it documents a pagemove of a page which was extensively edited before the move .  Rossami (talk) 05:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Note:Moved to generate more discussion. John Reaves (talk) 20:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. It is quite easy for a redirect to be offensive without the destination title being so.  For instance, if poodle redirected to Tony Blair, that would be offensive (all personal opinions on Blair aside).  The "offensiveness" here is in equating "the Middle East" with "anti-Semitism".  I could see no mention of a pagemove or a merge in the article's edit history, so I must say delete.  -- Black Falcon 05:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Excuse my poor choice of words. I wasn't trying to say that no redirect could be offensive, simply that I don't see how this one could be so considered.  The topic and tone of the destination article has shifted over time (often with great debate) and at times the page's topic was Anti-globalization and the Middle East.  A redirect is an adminstrative tool, not an endorsement.  It is not patently offensive like the redirect of an obscenity to a biography would be. On further investigation, I retract the comment about the pagemove.  The destination page has been extensively moved during it's history - and several of those moves predated the system-generated notes that provide the convenient links between the old and new sites.  Unfortunately, I must have gotten lost in the audit trail and confused this particular page with one of the other merged/moved pages.  I still think that this (and the several similar redirects created about the same time and listed in the old VfD debate) should be kept because they were part of the resolution of a particularly nasty POV-forking debate.  Rossami (talk) 23:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Anti-globalization and Anti-Zionism → Anti-globalization and antisemitism
The result of the debate was no consensus. John Reaves (talk) 22:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC) offensive redirect; calls people who oppose Israeli nationalism racists -- Kendrick7talk 19:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * I'm afraid I don't see how the redirect is any more (or less) offensive that the destination article's title. Looking at both page's histories, the redirect was created in order to consolidate a very contentious debate and to prevent the inappropriate forking of the article.  Keep unless there's a better reason for deletion.  Rossami (talk) 05:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Note:Moved to generate more discussion. John Reaves (talk) 20:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. The "offensiveness" here is in equating opposition with one form of nationalism with prejudice against an entire people.  I could see no mention of a pagemove or a merge in the article's edit history, so I must say delete.  -- Black Falcon 05:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The merger was of title and intended topic (not strictly page-content). This was hotly debated in the old VfD debate about the article and is documented there.  The creation of the redirects was a part of the resolution of the forking.  Remember that redirects are administrative tools, not endorsements.  This redirect does not endorse the perception you describe, it merely documents the evolution of the article as it's tone and content have changed.  Rossami (talk) 23:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I read the discussion and it is one of the 6 titles proposed near the bottom of the discussion by User:Sam Spade between 13:54 and 14:01 UTC on April 7, 2005. However, the actual redirect was created only after the VFD discussion (on April 10, 2005 at 11:15 UTC).  Prior to that discussion, a page under that title (as an article or a redirect) did not exist (see the deletion log).  Moreover, according to a comment by User:Jayjg, "The sources describe it as 'Anti-Semitism', not 'Anti-Zionism'".  Given that the primary purpose of redirects should be to aid navigation, the question becomes: would anyone search for this?  I think it to be likely that people will confuse "anti-Semitism" with "anti-Zionism", but I find it less plausible that they will search for this phrase exactly, with this particular capitalisation.  This, coupled with the statement by Jayjg, the low number of Ghits for the phrase (a rough, even if imperfect, indicator), and the potential POV issues lead me to favour deletion of the redirect page.  -- Black Falcon 01:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Black Falcon Algebraist 21:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a more likely (though not that likely) search term than "Middle East." -- Groggy Dice T | C 16:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)