Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 August 26

August 26
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 26, 2009

Esfahan
The result of the discussion was keep, this is clearly a likely redirect from an alternative spelling. RfD is the wrong venue for removing redirects blocking a move; that's what Requested Moves is for. ~ mazca  talk 23:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC) This page was nominated for deletion at Articles for deletion/Esfahan by user:Javadz 1385 who gave the rationale "i want to rename isfahan to esfahan". As this is a redirect not an article I have moved the discussion here. See below for my opinion. Thryduulf (talk) 23:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC) Not to sure what the official name is but I would try to make it consistant, e.g the category matching the article name. Himalayan   08:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * → Isfahan (links to redirect)
 * Keep The request is to delete the redirect from Esfahan to Isfahan so the titles could be swapped. Talk:Isfahan shows there was unanimous consensus in May this year that the article should be at it's present title, which reverted an undiscussed move in the opposite direction a year earlier. According to the discussion linked above, the current title (Isfahan) is where our naming conventions say the page should be, and I see no reasons given to go against that. I am about to make a note this discussion at Talk:Isfahan. Thryduulf (talk) 23:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * But this is a discussion about a redirect, not a category. Mhockey (talk) 09:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Strong keep The result of the recent article move discussion was to rename the article Isfahan, but there was also evidence provided in that discussion that Esfahan is also used in English, so we need the redirect. Mhockey (talk) 09:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Isn't this still the wrong forum for the discussion? The request is essentially to move the page over a redirect, so the proposer should just create a new article move discussion at Talk:Isfahan.  If consensus is reached to do so, an editprotected template is all that's needed for an admin to carry out the move (WP:G6, as noted at WP:RfD, #7). --Philosopher Let us reason together. 00:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Except that there was an article move discussion only 3 months ago. All very odd.  All that has happened is that someone has nominated the redirect page for deletion.  Probably a candidate for WP:SK.  If someone wants to request a move of Isfahan now, so soon after the last one, that is another matter, but it could be seen as disruptive. Mhockey (talk) 09:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that this is already a proposal for a move, since the only reason he doesn't want the redirect is to move the article. Which makes this not only a move request shortly after the discussion ended, but forum shopping, which does seem to be disruptive.  --Philosopher Let us reason together. 19:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The nominator has now opened a new article move request. The outcome of that request will determine the future of the redirect, so perhaps the redirect discussion should now be closed? Mhockey (talk) 21:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Not really - the issue at RfD is whether or not the redirect should be deleted (purportedly to "unblock" a move), while the move proposal is discussing whether or not the article is to be moved back to a previous title. While the two are related, they really are two separate issues. If the redirect is kept, the move discussion continues; if the redirect is deleted, the move discussion continues until its conclusion. Either way, RfD is relevant here (and either way, I'd strongly urge protecting the title of the redirect afterwards... at least until after the close of the move discussion). As it is, the new move request seems a bit premature, but that is beyond the purview of RfD. B.Wind (talk) 03:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * But surely: if the move request is unsuccessful, the redirect should be kept, as a previous name of the article (before the move on 26 April 2008). If the move request is successful, it would be a move over this redirect. Mhockey (talk) 09:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * True. Now that this discussion has lasted a week, it can be closed without prejudice to the move issue; nor should this influence the move proposal at all. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 14:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep per all above - it's a previous name for the article. The issue of the proposed move is irrelevant in this case. B.Wind's suggestion of protecting the redirect until the close of the move discussion is a good one (at last look, there seems no building consensus for a second move in four months. Protection would eliminate a potential site of an edit war - the continuing contention is already bordering on disruptive). 147.70.242.54 (talk) 14:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep -- As per above (especially the comments by 147.70.242.54. This seems to have been explored pretty well at this point. — m a k o ๛  20:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

State of Oregon
The result of the discussion was retarget to Oregon. A disambiguation page is generally seen as unnecessary here, anyone looking for Government of Oregon can find that easily enough within the state's article. ~ mazca  talk 23:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Redirect should be re-targeted to Oregon. Every other "State of ______" redirects to the main US state article, and there is no reason why Oregon should be any different. The flag of Oregon and seal of Oregon both use "State of Oregon" on them as the long-form state name. Most of the links to "State of Oregon" should be pointing to the main state article and not the government article. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * → Government of Oregon (links to redirect)
 * I don't really know what the right answer is, but the justification given here smacks of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. There is a good case to be made for either redirect, and the one in use in Oregon was not made out of ignorance or defiance, but out of a desire to serve Wikipedia's readers, just like everywhere else. Asserting that there's "no reason" why Oregon should be different is not a very well-thought-out argument.
 * I'll note that the examples used, flag of Oregon and seal of Oregon, are both instruments of the State, not the state, and may not be the most unbiased sources to consider.
 * However, as I said above, I really don't think either resolution is wrong. I just hope we can all respect one another's work in figuring out the solution. -Pete (talk) 23:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, "Though a lot of Wikipedia's styles are codified in policy, to a large extent minor details are not. In cases such as these, an "Other Stuff Exists"–type of argument or rationale may provide the necessary precedent for style and phraseology." Rreagan007 (talk) 00:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Since you were aware of the two previous discussions and the fact that some consideration had gone into the decision, your argument above rings entirely hollow. -Pete (talk) 01:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I was only involved in 1 of those discussions, and those discussions were inconclusive at best, hence I decided this would be the appropriate forum for a more definitive discussion. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying the nomination is unwarranted, just that your wording was a bit insensitive to the efforts of a fellow Wikipedian. It was just intended as a minor point…didn't mean to start a big argument. -Pete (talk) 01:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep redirected to State of Oregon changed—This is consistent with common usage. For example, City of Portland everyone understands to be the incorporated entity for Portland's government, which is distinct from its people, places, and property.  Anyone looking for the geographic region would look for Oregon wouldn't they?  —EncMstr (talk) 23:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I believe that in the case of U.S. states, the most common usage of "State of X" is that it would refer to the geographical region and not to the government. I would point out that at Us_states, all the "Official State Names" are listed as either "State of X" or "Commonwealth of X". In addition, at the main Oregon article, the official name at the top of the infobox is "State of Oregon" as is the case for all the other US State articles. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Make disambiguation—I'm changing my opinion based on Pete's compelling arguments. There's sufficient confusion over what might be meant by State of Oregon that anyone landing at this page should reflect and consciously choose either the government or geography.  —EncMstr (talk) 15:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Dabify. Let's just make a simple dab page that provides links to both Oregon and Government of Oregon, and leave it at that. Then we can devote our efforts to pointing the existing links to the right place, instead of arguing who's right and wrong. -Pete (talk) 01:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have created a basic disambiguation page at state of Oregon to illustrate what I mean. It may need a little tweaking, feel free to adjust the text etc. -Pete (talk) 01:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC) (link updated to the specific revision of the page)


 * Redirect to Oregon for consistency and based on the likelihood that searchers are wanting info on the state itself and not the government.  young  american  (wtf?) 13:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, redirect to Oregon. There is only one "State of Oregon" in the world, so having a disambiguation page would be absurd. The Government of Oregon is an instrument of the state, not the state itself.  Readers looking for information about the state government undoubtedly are capable of finding the link in the Oregon article.  --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: Here are a few examples of existing links to State of Oregon which are about the government entity, rather than the state. I went through a few, there are lots more to look at if we wanted to get an exhaustive list. (I should note, there were also cases where the state, rather than the government body, was clearly intended. I believe this supports the need for a disambiguation page.)


 * Reed Opera House and McCornack Block Addition: "The opera house was built by Cyrus Adams Reed under a contract with the State of Oregon"…
 * Oregon State Hospital: "State of Oregon" in infobox. Hospital is a public entity, run by the State.
 * Mahonia Hall (governor's residence): infobox: "Governing body: State of Oregon"
 * Shore Acres State Park: "Simpson sold the land to the State of Oregon for use as a park in 1942."
 * Guy W. Talbot State Park: "The falls itself was located on the property of Guy W. Talbot of Portland, who, in 1929, donated 220 acres (0.89 km2) of property to the State of Oregon."
 * Joel Palmer, in citations: "Oregon Blue Book. "Notable Oregonians: Joel Palmer- Pioneer/Writer". State of Oregon. Retrieved 2006-12-03." (The Blue Book is published by the Secretary of State.)
 * Noble Resolve: State of Oregon a participant in military campaign


 * -Pete (talk) 15:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The links that should be pointing to the government page can just be changed. The main concern here is what the typical user typing in "state of oregon" would be looking for. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What/who is a "typical" user? I tend to think "State of" as meaning the government.  Just because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't mean those were well thought through. --Tesscass (talk) 00:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, is it your position that the other 49 state redirects are wrong and should be changed? Rreagan007 (talk) 00:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No. It is my position that there is at least one exception to every rule. --Tesscass (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with exceptions to rules, but there needs to be some rational basis for an exception. What makes Oregon different from the other 49 states in this particular case? Rreagan007 (talk) 17:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you implying that the idea that "State of Oregon" means the Government of Oregon is irrational? --Tesscass (talk) 20:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I'm asking what is the rationale for treating Oregon differently from all the other states in this particular case. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "State of Oregon" is frequently used in innumerable reliable sources to refer to the government of the state, not the state itself. The fact that some editors "believe" that readers will universally be seeking information on the state, not the government, is not rooted in fact. It is evidence of a need for a disambiguation page that clarifies the difference between "State of…" and "state of…". And sure, this would likely be a good approach in other states, too – but that's not what the nom is about. -Pete (talk) 21:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep or dabify . --Tesscass (talk) 00:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Prefer keep, but do not strenuously object to redirect. Have reconsidered and don't think dabifying is wise in this instance.   Don't really see the big deal of being an exception.  To me its equally valid to have a dab hatnote on either Oregon and Government of Oregon page.  --Tesscass (talk) 21:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Oregon. Oregon is a state.  Its government is not a state.  Therefore, it should point to Oregon. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 00:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Philosopher, that's kind of beside the point -- it's not a question of what "Oregon" is. It's a question of what "State of Oregon" or "state of Oregon" refers to, and what a reader typing in the phrase is trying to find. -Pete (talk) 21:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * 'Redirect to Oregon. Philosopher puts it well. older ≠ wiser 15:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Do not dabify as such a compromise would yield the worse case results, forcing all incoming links to be repaired and making the phrase unsuitable for future unpiped linking. The strongest argument for retargeting is the precedence set by its 49 cousin redirects, and this argues against a dab page as well.  -- Thinking of England (talk) 17:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Oregon and Do not dabify. Youngamerican put it best. There is no rationale for State of Oregon being different from any of the other State of... pages. Furthermore, the fact that Oregon had nearly 86,000 hits in July vs. 500 for Government of Oregon indicates that most wikipedians who are looking for Oregon want the state, not the State. I would suggest adding or something similar to Oregon.  --Zach425 talk / contribs 21:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Oregon, as conventional usage and the government is not a state. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I don't see a need to create a dab page when there are only two possible targets.  Why not redirect to Oregon and add a hatnote like this one? Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 12:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Oregon for consistency with other state articles and to cater to most users expectations. Government of Oregon is linked from that page and a dab seems both unprecedented and inappropriate. — m a k o ๛  20:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I did not expect this to be such a contentious discussion, and I am realizing I have not stated a few things that seem obvious and relevant to me, but apparently are not. This is my full list of reasons for feeling that a disambiguation page is the best option for Oregon, and for other states as well.
 * There is a distinction between "state of…" and "State of…" -- the former is generally understood to refer to the state itself, the latter its government. Same goes for "city of…" and "City of…". I say this as someone who has had the professional duties of proofreading and copyediting in multiple jobs, and as someone who is intimately familiar with newspaper coverage etc. in the way they use this sort of language. I no longer have style guides lying around like I used to, so it's difficult for me to research the exact point; but it's not a controversial point in the world of traditional publishing.
 * Mediawiki software does not permit a distinction between an initial capital letter and an initial lower-case letter.
 * Common usage and style guidelines in the U.S. are likely very different from the U.K. and elsewhere. While I appreciate the international perspective, and while it is often necessary to overcome misconceptions that may develop in local areas, in this case I believe most editors from the U.K. and elsewhere simply don't have a familiarity with American coverage of this sort of topic, and are simply ill-equipped to make a good determination on this issue.
 * The examples I used above to illustrate places where "State of Oregon" is used to refer to the gov't are important. They generally originate from reliable sources; this means that (a) they originate from sources that have editors familiar with relevant style guidelines, and (b) that readers who encounter the phrase in those sources, or similar ones, are likely to type in State of Oregon with the desired result of finding the entity that owns something, or enforces something…in other words, the government of Oregon.
 * Readers seeking the "gov't of…" article may be a minority (I don't know how you'd determine how many people have what intent), but that does not mean they are insignificant. Even if only, say, 10% of readers have that sort of confusion, I believe a disambiguation page would still be a service, and would not be a significant inconvenience for other readers.
 * -Pete (talk) 23:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I dispute that "State of Oregon" with state capitalized can't refer to the state. The preamble to the state constitution of Oregon states "We the people of the State of Oregon to the end that Justice be established, order maintained, and liberty perpetuated, do ordain this Constitution." And, as mentioned above, both the Oregon flag and Oregon seal use "State of Oregon" as the long-form name of the state.
 * Furthermore, I have lived in the United States my entire life, and I have always understood "State of X" to be the formal long-form name of the individual states. I have never understood it to mean the government of the state. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly. A small-s "state" refers to the state itself, that is, Oregon.  This is a description of the form of government.  A capital-s "State of" is also a reference to the state itself and is the formal name of the State.
 * Further, a dab page would be incredibly pointless and counterproductive - a hatnote is the correct way to distinguish if there is a lack of clarity between two pages. Though I agree with the others that the hatnote is unnecessary.  "State of Oregon" clearly refers to the State of Oregon - I don't see any reason for confusion here. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 09:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Do not dabify--A separate disambig page is not needed in this case and would go against standard Wikipedia practice. Per WP:Dab "If only a primary topic and one other topic require disambiguation, then disambiguation links are sufficient, and a disambiguation page is unnecessary." The main Oregon article is clearly the main topic. I do not think any disambig is needed in this case, but if it is done then it should only be done with a hatnote at the main Oregon page linking to the government page. I think that is unnecessary though, since the government article is linked to within the main Oregon article itself. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Redirect to Oregon for the sake of consistency. --Cyber cobra (talk) 20:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Oregon, do not make dab Oregon is a state, the State of Oregon refers to the state called Oregon. Idiomatically it can mean the government, but that still means the state. Also think about the U.S. State of Oregon. The U.S. is just implied.  Reywas92 Talk  22:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Paul Crowley
The result of the discussion was move Paul Crowley (footballer) here over redirect, as he's the only notable Paul Crowley with an article at the moment. ~ mazca  talk 23:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Redirect should be deleted - there is no mention of any Crowley on the target page, so the redirect seems meaningless to the user. Note that all of the links to the redirect appear to be about sports people, not TV personalities. ciphergoth (talk) 10:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * → WXIA-TV (links to redirect)
 * There's something odd going on with that name. The page Paul Crowley was nominated for AfD twice in January 2006: WP:Articles for deletion/Paul Crowley and WP:Articles for deletion/Paul Crowley (2nd nomination). Both were closed as keep, but from the content of the discussions it is clear that each page discussed a different person. The page was then speedy deleted as A7 in June 2007. The current page was created as a redirect in 2009, but as Ciphergoth points out, there is no mention of anyone named Paul Crowley at WXIA-TV. There is currently an article called Paul Crowley (footballer) and red-links in at least two articles to Paul Crowley (cryptologist) (e.g. Solitaire (cipher)). Cnilep (talk) 13:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Side note The deletion log entry leads me to believe that the CSD A7 was a result of an objection to OTRS by the acamedician Paul Crowley, the original intended subject of the article. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 16:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Based on above, delete redirect, then move Paul Crowley (footballer) to this name. Should other notable people named Paul Crowley get Wikipedia articles, this proposed move can then be reverted and a disambiguation page could appear in its place. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 16:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)