Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 November 1

November 1
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 1, 2012

Matthew XX:XX -> Gospel of Matthew



 * 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. Knowledgeable editors are encouraged to better target these as appropriate. Non admin closure Ego White Tray (talk) 23:57, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

This is a representative sample of the 835 redirects to Gospel of Matthew from titles of the form Matthew XX:XX. It should be noted that we have 193 articles of this form that are not redirects - these cover the more notable verses. The target article does not mention specifically any of the 835 redirected titles, and we have no other religious text or work of literature for which this manner of bulk redirecting has been carried out yet. I'm not sure the practice is beneficial to the encyclopaedia, either as a navigational aid or a precedent. TB (talk) 22:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * → Gospel of Matthew (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * → Gospel of Matthew (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * → Gospel of Matthew (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * → Gospel of Matthew (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * → Gospel of Matthew (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * → Gospel of Matthew (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * Keep neither new nor harmful. Rich Farmbrough, 22:37, 1 November 2012 (UTC).


 * All these are plausible unambiguous redirects, and even if the specific verse isn't mentioned this would tell someone searching for one of these that the reference was to a quote from this gospel.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  22:42, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Might as well, perfectly plausible redirects, easily linked to and also deleting them wouldn't hae any beneficial effect, they would still be on the server just not being helpful.-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 23:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment if we keep these, I think they should all be protected from editing, so as to remain redirects, instead of every some while someone writing an article on each passage in the Bible -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 07:26, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Some will doubtless gain articles, others alternative redirect targets, for example Matthew 28:18 => Great Commission. No need to prevent these actions. Rich Farmbrough, 22:59, 2 November 2012 (UTC).


 * Keep. Given that we have articles on some specific verses, all the others are very likely search terms. Thryduulf (talk) 12:40, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. The deletion reason is a variety of WP:NOEFFORT.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randomizer3 (talk • contribs) 02:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No; the biggest problem the nominator sees is that we have 735 redirects from titles with distinct meanings to a more generic article.  Exaggerating to make a point, it's a bit like having a robot redirect the name of every car model for which we have no article currently to automobile.  Red links are not broken. - TB (talk) 08:42, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * One difference is that there are a limited number of verses in the Bible, and they all come in a predictable form. It's possible to be sure that we've created articles or redirects for every Bible verse, and because they're all in the same form, someone who wants to look up the fifth verse of Matthew's twelfth chapter by its reference will always use Matthew 12:5.  Nyttend (talk) 14:40, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Said reader might be a bit disappointed to end up on an article that doesn't have any content specific to his/her very specific search. - TB (talk) 14:53, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. Historically, my concern was the creation of such articles were an attempt to create a sort of annotated bible, as opposed to encyclopedia articles. I also felt that the existence of redirects might encourage other authors to pursue the stub/annotated bible, unencyclopedic route again. I'm not sure if this has been the case. Also, because of the nature of the synoptic gospels sharing content, I felt discussing the content in a more inclusive, block sort of nature was preferable to separating the bible stories out based on what book they are found in, even if the exact same story is found in 3 gospels. The redirect Rich Farmbrough mentioned is an example of what I am talking about (and what I prefer). I'm still skeptical that someone would use specific bible verses as a search term, but if there are no ongoing conflicts regarding editing this content and the redirects, then my initial concerns seem unwarranted. And a protected redirected, as mentioned above, might be a better way to handle those problems than an outright deletion.-Andrew c [talk] 14:29, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The redirects I examined are getting a steady trickle of hits, across the sum of them amounting to many thousands per year. It would be good if they were at least better targetted. Rich Farmbrough, 02:38, 6 November 2012 (UTC).


 * Retarget. Since many Bible verses have articles, any verse becomes a potential search target.  Better to redirect them to a related article than to tell them that we don't discuss the topic at all.  However, we appear to have articles on all of Matthew's chapters.  Why not just change the targets so that they all redirect to the chapter articles?  Nyttend (talk) 14:36, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * By any verse becomes a potential search target do you mean within Matthew, or is this treatment appropriate to the rest of the Bible (around 31,000 verses), or all similar religious texts (the Quaran has around 6300, the Vedas 10600 and so forth)? - TB (talk) 15:02, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest that we put together a list of all Bible verses by reference, and then we'd take each redlink and make it into a redirect to the chapter; likewise, for all verses in all books (including these Matthew ones) that redirect to the book, I'm proposing that we retarget them to their chapters. Probably the ayat of the Qur'an should be redirected to their surahs, and I know absolutely nothing of the Vedas, so I'll make no comment on that.  However, everything I'm saying depends on there being a single standard way of referring to verses, which the Bible has.  Are Qur'anic ayat typically done by number:ayah, surah:ayah, surah ayah, or some other way?  For example, is the fifteenth verse of the second surah typically cited as "2:15", "al-Baqara:15", "al-Baqara 15", or something else?  If there be a single way that's virtually always used when citing the Qur'an in English, we should create redirects at all references of that form. Nyttend (talk) 19:34, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes it is tricky in general though, since double redirects do not work. If they did we could simply redirect (non article) verses to chapters, and non-article chapters to books.  Moreover WP:Bible has gone with  as the standard linking so internal links are very sparse - and we are dependant on an external source, which I find unfortunate (also a little Easter eggy).  I have somewhere a list of verses in Job I think, should someone want to undertake this exercise.  Rich Farmbrough, 02:33, 6 November 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.

Geography of the Palestinian territories



 * 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 closing the solution found here  without prejudice to future changes. Tikiwont (talk) 21:05, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


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

 Retarget  to Outline of the Palestinian territories. After the result of the last RFD was to retarget this to the target I'm proposing here, Greyshark09 retargeted this to it's current target. I think his reason was that this was a geographic territory, and doesn't warrant a "Geography of" article, but by that standard, we shouldn't have the Geography of Western Sahara, or Geography of North America articles either. Compare the Geography of Western Sahara article to Western Sahara, or Geography of North America to North America. The main articles are about land/country/whatever in general: it's people, history, etc. The "Geography of" articles are about the physical geography (if that's the right phrase): the climate, the geology, etc. Now that "Geography of" section needs allot of work to make it anywhere near as complete as those two examples I gave, I gave you but it's there. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 19:22, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I take it you mean "Standard" not "Slandered"? Rich Farmbrough, 22:40, 1 November 2012 (UTC).


 * Yep, just a misspelling. I've fixed it Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 23:05, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Outlines are unlikely to be good targets. Rich Farmbrough, 22:40, 1 November 2012 (UTC).


 * Retarget in this case it seems the best target. I wonder why no one has written a good geography article?  Rich Farmbrough, 22:56, 1 November 2012 (UTC).


 * Restore Article I just made a discovery. Apparently, this along with Geography of the West Bank and Geography of the Gaza Strip were articles until they were redirected their parent articles. It appears that the people who did this were unaware of the difference between "Geography of" articles and articles about peaces of land. Those articles may need some irreverent non-physiographic information removed from them, and they definitely need improvement to make them anywhere near as good as Geography of North America of Geography of Israel tough. Palestinian territories like North America and Western Sahara are geography articles because they are about peaces of land, but their scope is far broader then physical geography. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 13:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Here are some related discussions: Talk:Geography of the West Bank Talk:Geography of the Gaza Strip Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 13:50, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have changed it to a version of what looks like the agreed solution - a pointer to the two geographic articles for the two territories. Without prejudice to future changes of course. Rich Farmbrough, 01:33, 3 November 2012 (UTC).


 * Now it points to West Bank and Gaza Strip, and those scope of those articles is far broader then physical geography, so the problem remains. I've taken a better look at this, and I think the thing to do is to Restore Geography of the West Bank, Geography of the Gaza Strip, and the disambig page which points to them. It looks like the reason this was turned into a disambig page was because it's content was just a "West Bank" section and a "Gaza Strip" sections which were coppys the "Geography of the West Bank" and "Geography of Gaza Strip" articles. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 01:49, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * West Bank is headed This article is about the geography, demographics and general history of the West Bank. 
 * Gaza Strip is ehaded This article is about geography and general history of the Gaza Strip. 
 * Doubtless the solution envisaged years back has proved slippery. It is however easy enough to link to the redirect sections.  The deleted "Geography of..." articles appeared to have been little more than CIA Factbook extracts (according to the talk pages).  So by all means if you can produce decent "Geography of..." articeles then it sounds fine.  Rich Farmbrough, 02:09, 3 November 2012 (UTC).


 * I didn't release that those articles have geography sections, I'm very tired. Considering that they do have geography sections, I agree with your solution. I'll make them link to the Geography sections (via the "Geography of" redirects per WP:NOTBROKEN). Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 02:19, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like you beat me to it. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 02:20, 3 November 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.

Bob Pastrick



 * 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. Ruslik_ Zero 16:16, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


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

This redirection should be removed. I cannot tell why this person is being redirected to the Democratic National Committee. Natg 19 (talk) 07:28, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Redlink - Pastrick was mayor of East Chicago, Indiana and was convicted in a huge contracting corruption case (http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/lake/judge-orders-pastrick-allies-to-pay-m/article_c3ca54cb-9d88-534c-9928-76022c93ee26.html). The redirect makes zero sense, since I see no evidence that he was much involved with the DNC. Alternatively, a redirect to East Chicago is a possibility. Ego White Tray (talk) 12:14, 1 November 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.

One Flew Out of the Cuckoo's Nest (2)



 * 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 Retarget the first one to One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest; delete the second one. Ruslik_ Zero 16:21, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * → List of The Golden Girls episodes (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * → List of The Golden Girls episodes (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Duplicates redirect at One Flew Out of the Cuckoo's Nest No  unique  names  06:05, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect both to One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, I suspect most people who come here are looking for the play/movie/book and are slightly confused about the title. The disambiguation page this redirect would point to lists the Golden Girls episode as a see also, so we're covered. Ego White Tray (talk) 12:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * On second thought Delete the one with (2) at the end (which was only the original article for 13 days) and redirect the other one. Ego White Tray (talk) 12:21, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep both neither new nor harmful. Rich Farmbrough, 00:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC).


 * It isn't harmful? At the risk of sounding rude, what would make you think that?  Confusing the words "over" and "out of" is a very plausible searching mistake, that may end up confusing the reader. Randomizer3 (talk) 02:55, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect both to disambiguation.  One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest appears to be the  primary topic, redirect to it; add the obscure tv show episode to the disambiguation page, perhaps placing it in a  hatnote for those who were searching for the obscure tv show episode. Randomizer3 (talk) 02:55, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Clarification: There is currently a redirect at "One Flew Out of the Cuckoo's Nest (2)" to "List of The Golden Girls episodes" which I would like to have deleted. There is also a redirect at "One Flew Out of the Cuckoo's Nest" that would remain.  Please note the lack of a (2) in the one that would remain, and its presence in the redirect to remove.  -- No  unique  names  05:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That doesn't change the fact that redirecting One Flew Out of the Cuckoo's Nest to that obscure tv show rather than One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. Once again, ambiguity.  If we redirect, as I recommend, we would put something on the disambiguation page at One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, probably a  hatnote saying something like "One Flew Out of the Cuckoo's Nest redirects here.  For the Golden Girls episode, click here" or whatever.  (I've never written a hatnote.)  If we keep it, we should at least put a hatnote on the destination page saying something like "Not to be confused with One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest."  Randomizer3 (talk) 20:09, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you miss my point. There need not be a redirect at all for the nominated entry.  There is no need for the "(2)" at the end of the title.  It's unnecessary and unlikely to be helpful.  Redirecting the one not nominated would be fine in my opinion.  -- No  unique  names  23:00, 4 November 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.