Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 August 30

August 30
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 30, 2012

Europe's last dictatorship



 * 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. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * → Belarus (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * → Alexander Lukashenko (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * → Alexander Lukashenko (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * → Belarus (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

POV pushing, useless for encyclopedic purposes; delete — Yerpo Eh? 12:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Both. Unencyclopedic, and a sneaky way to make a statement.   PK  T (alk)  12:12, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: I declined a speedy deletion nomination for Last European dictator as I found evidence of usage in RSs . This should not be seen as an endorsement or argument for retention of the redirect, I just don't think it meets any CSD.  (talk) 12:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: These statements are used on various sites:, for example. --MAXXX-309 (talk) 13:18, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep both, evidence of use in reliable sources (e.g., , , ) means these are useful search terms. Per WP:RNEUTRAL - "if a redirect represents an established term that is used in multiple mainstream reliable sources, it should be kept even if non-neutral, as it will facilitate searches on such terms.". Thryduulf (talk) 13:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Looking further, the Human rights in Belarus article may make a better target for the redirect as the "dictator" and "dictatorship" phrases are cited multiple times in the article. It wouldn't make a good target for  as people will be expecting to arrive at a biographical article. Thryduulf (talk) 13:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete clearly POV. Secretlondon (talk) 14:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It is POV, but it's a POV used in many different, independent reliable sources (The Guardian and the Daily Mail rarely agree on things, but they both use the term) that we are documenting not one that we are espousing. By having a redirect from a notable POV term to our NPOV article we are educating readers who may be aware of the viewpoints of only one side of a dispute/argument/etc - see WP:RNEUTRAL. Thryduulf (talk) 15:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * In my view, redirecting from that phrase is equivalent to writing it in the opening sentence and it is a much stronger message than including it, in context, somewhere in the text. After all, the search phrases "Europe's last dictatorship" and "Last European dictator" will return useful results even without the redirects. As a compromise, "Europe's last dictatorship" as a redirect to Human rights in Belarus and "Last European dictator" as a redirect to Alexander Lukashenko would be better. — Yerpo Eh? 15:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well the phrases (or near equivalents) are included with context in the articles. I equally in favour of retargetting "Europe's last dictatorship" to Human rights in Belarus as keeping it at the present target (as the human rights concerns aren't the only reason for the label). I'm not sure that the Domestic policy section is the right place in the Alexander Lukashenko article though - the word "dictator" isn't mentioned in that section, but it is used (several times) in the lead, First term and Foreign policy sections. Given that the lead section is the most prominent usage and the context there makes it explicitly clear who is calling him or likening him to a dictator and why (and that it is not POV on our part) I think that's the best target. This has the added benefit of making very clear who the subject is for people who have heard/read the phrase "last dictator in Europe" but don't recall to whom it was applied. Assuming a WWII or Cold War-era leader would, I suspect, be a very common thing for people not familiar with contemporary European politics. Thryduulf (talk) 22:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I've boldly added Europe's last dictator and Last European dictatorship as they should also have the same fate. 82.132.248.220 (talk) 16:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete all - While POV isn't such a big problem, as demonstrated by Thryduulf, I take issue with that "last" bit: What's good for today's newspaper headline or a recent political statement is bad for an encyclopedia that's supposed to be relevant in ten years. --illythr (talk) 15:29, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The beauty of Wikipedia being a wiki is that as usage of words and phrases change, so can Wikipedia. If it turns out that in 6 months or 10 years or whenever that the phrase "the last dictator in Europe" is being used to describe someone else then we can change the target of the redirect, write a dab page and/or add hatnotes as appropriate. What isn't going to change is that Lukashenko has been prominently described as Europe's last dictator and it is currently a well-used, unambiguous, search term (ditto all of this for Belaurs/Last dictatorship... etc). We should not inconvenience readers now because a search may not be accurate in the future (which is what you're suggesting). None of us can predict the future (WP:CRYSTAL) many titles and redirects that are unambiguous today may become ambiguous in future and primary usage can and does change - Brave (film) was an article until 2010 when the 1994 film needed to be disambiguated; Last Queen of Hawaii and Last Queen of England are currently a redirects to 19th and 17th Century women respectively, but it is not impossible that others will hold the title in future. See also User:Thryduulf/List of time-sensitive redirects. Thryduulf (talk) 17:34, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I see a distinction between "Next election in Whatchamacallit" which is a purely technical redirect, and "Last bad place/bad guy" which is a situational political slogan. In order to stay neutral in the latter case, we need to explain to the reader, who uses the term for what and why. There seem to be enough reliable sources using and describing this term group to warrant its own article, so it should be made into one (same as with Evil empire, Great Satan, and all the other notable slogans). A specific redirect would also be sufficient, as long as the term is described in the targeted section, with direct attribution. Otherwise, they should be deleted as relative, unattributed POV statements. --illythr (talk) 00:33, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "here seem to be enough reliable sources using and describing this term group to warrant its own article..." - The difference between this an "evil empire", etc. is that there is more than one place/group that has been so described but an article about these phrases would duplicate substantial parts of Alexander Lukashenko and Belarus and make both them and the new article(s) more prone to POV bias. "A specific redirect would also be sufficient, as long as the term is described in the targeted section, with direct attribution." the terms are used with direct attribution in the targetted articles. Thryduulf (talk) 08:56, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There's more than one person/place described as "Last European dictator/ship" (then we'll need disambigs)? Anyhow, since the batch under discussion is about one concept (political opinion on Lukashenko's rule in Belarus), the solution would be to pick the most commonly used one, mention the others and follow the example of, say, "Evil Empire", which is quite neutral in its description of the term. Otherwise, yes, retargeting the redirects as suggested by Yerpo would be fine too. To address your concern regarding the Lukashenko article sections, move the stuff about the terms from the "foreign policy" into the "domestic policy" section, since this is a criticism of the former and is not really connected to the latter (it is not his foreign policy). --illythr (talk) 00:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete all POV. FurrySings (talk) 14:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * These redirects are non-neutral statements, but WP:RNEUTRAL explains that this is not a reason in and of itself to delete a redirect. There is discussion above about whether or not these are useful search terms given the facts presented, and if they are whether the targets are correct. Would you like to offer your reasoned opinions about these questions? Or if you feel that the policy/guideline should not apply in this case, please could you explain why? Thryduulf (talk) 14:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete basically. Or possible make a dab with Slobodan Milošević because Mr. L had competition for that title not so long ago. And "Europe's last dictatorship" was Serbia at about the same time . But we generally want to avoid derogatory expressions as dabs. A lot of people have been called a lot of things by their critics... Tijfo098 (talk) 00:06, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.

LOHGBF



 * 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. I'd assume this was created for the convenience of those editing the target page but for the rest it is deemed too vague. Tikiwont (talk) 12:36, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * → List of highest-grossing Bollywood films (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

A highly unlikely redirect. Ironholds (talk) 11:24, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * agree with Ironholds. -- The Red Pen of Doom  14:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete vague synonym.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 00:03, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * comment The stats pages says that this page was visited 17 last month, so the question becomes "Is that what they are looking for?" Tideflat (talk) 14:34, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, unused term and vague. Secret of success (talk) 15:47, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.

Cite journal



 * 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 all. Usefulness in creating a well referenced encyclopedia still outweighs name space issues and some technical concerns. Tikiwont (talk) 19:42, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * → Template:Cite journal (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * → Template:Cite web (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * → Template:Cite web (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * → Template:Cite book (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * → Template:Cite book (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * → Template:Cite news (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * → Template:Cite news (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Would it really be so painful for people typing in the extra "Category:" namespace? Confusing for new users who are expecting information on citing the web but only getting a template which is useless for them. Cyan Gardevoir (used EDIT!) 10:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Cite book and Cite news also exist. I suggest that the Redirects for Discussion proposal be reformatted to include them. Either all 4 should be deleted or all 4 should be kept, since the justification and function of all 4 are similar. LK (talk) 10:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. I explained in the past that this link has extra problems since it was misused. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note nominations for and  merged,  and  added to the nomination. Thryduulf (talk) 12:01, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Check previous discussion where I raise concerns on the use of cross-namespace redirects like these Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2011_February_13. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per previous discussions. If you think cite web itself is problematic, I'd suggest opening an RfD for it alone. As such, this will remain a discussion on the value of these cross-namespace redirects. --BDD (talk) 20:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete all. The main problem I can see here is that editors sometimes accidentally type [[cite web instead of {{cite web . This happens pretty often (e.g. here, here, here, here, here and many more). Instead these should be red links so that when an editor makes this error they get a big red reference which they are then much more likely to notice that they have made a mistake and correct it or if they don't notice it the next editor to come along is likely to notice it (e.g. If the references on this page were all red links I'm sure someone would have noticed by now...). Currently errors like this go unnoticed for months. Furthermore if a reader types "Cite" in the search box (for example if they were looking for information on [[CITES]], Cité des Sciences et de l'Industrie or Cîteaux Abbey) they should not be presented with the template documentation of {{tl|cite web}} as one of the options on the drop-down list as they are currently. These problems far outweigh the 'usefulness' because some editors are too lazy to type "Template:". 82.132.248.217 (talk) 20:46, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I've boldly added Citeweb, Citebook and Citenews as the outcome of this discussion should apply to them too. 82.132.248.217 (talk) 21:24, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Retarget to citation. It solves the CNR issue while pointing the reader/editor to the wiki's citation guide and templates-- Lenticel {{sup|( talk )}} 00:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Reatarget to citation per Lenticel's elegant solution. Thryduulf (talk) 21:28, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep all - Long-standing cross-namespace redirects are kept because of their long-standing history and potential usefulness. WP:R. Nothing has changed since the numerious preveous discussions. There's no article on information on citing the web. The nominated list of redirects are not similarly situated and the continued piling on of nominated redirects after the first iVote mischaracterizes those iVotes already in the discussion as applying to the late added redirects. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep all - Per Uzma Gamal. And yes, it really is that annoying: My time is limited, and requiring me to enter the namespace adds the possibility of further mistakes. Furthermore, I doubt that all that many people type the phrase "cite web" intending to find out how one cites the web in general. They might do that in a general search engine, but not on WP. Lockesdonkey (talk) 21:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep all - I'm not sure how many users will really be searching for "citeweb" or "citenews" etc on here. They'd search for "citation", and find what they were looking for there. The redirects are useful, in the same way the "WP:_" shortcuts are. Cloudbound (talk) 12:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep all per Uzma Gamal. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep all - Very useful shortcuts, nothing has changed since previous discussions. Also, with the community recognizing a need to make our formatting methods easier to use in order to encourage more editors to contribute, this RfD would take us in the other direction.  Altairisfar (talk) 13:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep all, and do some research before nominating anything again. Look at page views, previous debates, and you will see that there is a longstanding consensus that these should be kept. I just found this nom by using the redirect. Abductive  (reasoning) 20:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep all per Altairisfar.-  Oreo Priest  {{sup|talk}} 15:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep all New editors don't know that if you see two curly brackets, you need to put "Template:" in front to find the source page. These redirects help new editors learn how to correctly make citations. I know this is true because it just happened to me. FurrySings (talk) 09:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep all by UG. I'm an experienced editor and I still ended up on one of these redirects, and therefore this discussion. - Stillwaterising (talk) 19:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to citation as per Lenticel. Longstanding editors can make their own reference page of quick links (like User:Banaticus/references) for things that they want to find quickly but don't want to type out fully every time.  Wikipedians who know exactly what template they want, should just type Template:whatever.  If a Wikipedian doesn't know which template specifically they want, then we should help them find the top of the template pyramid most relevant to what they likely want then they can go down the rabbit hole from there.  There's a lot of text at the top of the cite web template and it can be easily confused for a cite web page, when almost the same text is at the top of the page.  In this case, I think redirecting all the "cite whatever" pages to "citation" makes for a better pyramid top. Banaticus (talk) 01:23, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep all Highly useful redirects that I leverage often for ease and efficiency.  Using these redirects is not lazy.  It's time-saving.  Lazy is not citing at all or not using these templates in favor of something sloppy like simple brackets.  Redirecting to citation is not elegant at all.  It is a terrible suggestion as it completely neutralizes their utility. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:16, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep all I also find these redirects useful. 82.132.248.217 makes a valid point but I think that mis-usage is sufficiently rare not to be of prime concern. Jason Quinn (talk) 19:16, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.

Glossary of 'carny' slang



 * 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. Tikiwont (talk) 12:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * → Carny (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Unllikely search term. The page was moved from Carny to Glossary of 'carny' slang in 2010 (note the improper use of single quotes) without consensus to do so. The reasoning was that the page consisted mainly of a list of carny slang at the time. This issue has since been fixed, so I moved the page back to Carny, thus making the old title invalid. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:12, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * speedy keep. The article was at this title from April 2010 until a few hours ago. With over 7000 hits in July, this will be the target of many incomming links and many page visits for some considerable time. Deletion would be very harmful and would bring no benefits. Full disclosure: I reversed the speedy deletion of this title, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 August 29 for context. Thryduulf (talk) 01:25, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Polari. Carny appropriately no longer contains an actual glossary of carny slang, which is available at Polari. --BDD (talk) 22:51, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Polari is British while Carny is American. It doesn't make sense to have one without the other. Warden (talk) 15:32, 1 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep The consensus of recent discussion is that glossaries are fine. Warden (talk) 15:32, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep With the glossary restored, this is the appropriate action. A split might be appropriate, however. --BDD (talk) 15:39, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The "glossary" showed up on a Google search, and was just what I was looking for. --LCE(talk contribs) 19:27, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.

Mommy makeover



 * 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. Tikiwont (talk) 12:45, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * → Plastic surgery (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Implausible redirect. Was an non-notable spam article, linked from PR web but AFD isn't appropriate now that it is a redirect. Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 01:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * note the article was converted into a redirect per the ongoing discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Thryduulf (talk) 01:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete No matter what, an insulting redirect that should be blown to smithereens. Despite the many TV shows that do this, there's no true redirect target this can go to.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 04:42, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Kill it as advertivanicruftispam. Roger (talk) 09:19, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Purely promotional puffery. No encyclopaedic value. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:50, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - it's not a term unique to this guy. Secretlondon (talk) 14:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - since there are no elements of this "makeover" that aren't some form of cosmetic surgery, the redirect to Medical aesthetics is fully appropriate. I would also support a redirect to Plastic surgery without further input on my part. Rklawton (talk) 17:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Erm, this is a redirect to Plastic surgery, so your !vote would seem to be supporting keeping the redirect or retargetting it to Medical aesthetics? Thryduulf (talk) 22:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - at best it deserves a mention as part of another article, but it's basically a massive spamming of an insulting name for a specific target market of plastic surgery. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 22:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a free ad agency.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 00:02, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete a complete wardrobe change has nothing to do with plastic surgery. -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 04:49, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong delete – obvious usage of Wikipedia for advertising space. --MuZemike 06:10, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Wikipedia is not an advertising agency. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:16, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.