Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 April 19

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 2013 April 18
2013 April 20 >

19 April 2013

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Butcher of the Balkans (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This was a curious RfD to begin with, but halfway through, the redirect was turned into a disambiguation page because it turned out that the redirect target isn't the primary topic. This went practically unchallenged for a week, but the RfD closing admin still reinstated the redirect as a result of the earlier discussion where people said it should be kept, not deleted. I think we need to adjust that RfD outcome to avoid the mistaken impression that we had a consensus to remove the disambiguation page (which we didn't, really). I discussed it with them at User talk:Amorymeltzer#.22Butcher_of_the_Balkans.22 and we couldn't come to an understanding, so as they suggested, I'm opening this discussion. (Note also Talk:Butcher of the Balkans (disambiguation).) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm specifically asking for a discussion here because [1] [2] [3]. There is no clear primary topic consensus that would support these edits, but they were still made no less than three times. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Having reread the RfD and read the various talk pages, it's clear the only remaining question is whether Milosovic is the primary topic or not as everyone who has taken an interest subsequent to the RfD seems to agree that
    WP:RM discussion at the dab talk page, link it from the article and redirect talk pages and invite contributors to the RfD and this DRV to the discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 10:05, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
You think that RfD close does not preclude a disambiguation page being made primary, but two other people reverted edits that do so - referencing the RfD. I'm fine with this discussion being moved to a RM or a RFC or whatever, but we need actual
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC arguments to be presented. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Per
WP:BRD, after the first revert no more moves should have been made until there was consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 11:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
The issue is that the reverts weren't referencing a general guideline such as BRD (essay really, but never mind), they were referencing the RfD discussion. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whether BRD is explicitly mentioned or not is irrelevant, it always applies. The closure was implemented, it was boldly changed and that change was reverted. The correct next step is discussion, not edit warring. Thryduulf (talk) 14:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no. The closure wasn't just "boldly changed" - the closure was a bold change in and of itself, because nobody actually complained about the disambiguation page in a while before the closure. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get onto this in next 24 hours. Hope it doesn't close too quickly.
argue) 10:49, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
DRVs usually last 7 days, and baring a snow closure I can't see any reason for this review to be closed early. Thryduulf (talk) 11:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Evlekis, your opinion seems fairly evident from the linked discussions and [4] - you already told us you do not think the RfD result precludes the disambiguation. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This really looks like something that needs to be thrashed out on the talk pages. There was a clear consensus at the RFD that Butcher of the Balkans should be a bluelink and not a redlink, and that consensus was correctly implemented. Whether that bluelink should be a redirect or a disambiguation page or anything else is a content decision that any editor can make or change via the normal processes, providing the basic consensus that the title should be a bluelink is adhered to. I'm sorry to sound unhelpful, and that's not my intention, but I don't think we can start using DRV as a venue to make fine-grained decisions about content. The purpose of this page is to scrutinise administrative decisions around speedy deletion or consensus assessment in deletion-related processes.—S Marshall T/C 11:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even in light of this edit? I don't think it's unreasonable to bring this to DRV to at least clarify that the only binding result of the RFD (to the extent that anything's binding) was that it shouldn't be deleted. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 11:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • @S Marshall, while in most cases I'd agree with you, a DRV is not inappropriate when there is edit warring about the result of a deletion discussion. I think going straight to RM would have been more appropriate, but this isn't wrong. Thryduulf (talk) 12:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The question here is - was the RfD a fine-grained decision about content - should the existent article be a redirect or a disambiguation page? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if I was unclear, but I'm also by and large endorsing the RfD closure - the question here isn't whether the closure should be overturned - it's whether that RfD closure implies prejudice to making a disambiguation page. What do you think? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No. The non-deletion of a redirect does not mandate te continued state of redirect versus new article versus a dab page.

The closing statement says "A disambiguation and a hatnote would probably not be out of order", which correctly asserts that a decision on disambiguation is not made by the close.

XfD closes have no subsequent authority over future editing. The close is a limited action. However, relevant comments made in the discussion need ot be considered. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've apologized elsewhere for being unclear there - I specifically meant the Butcher of the Balkans (disambiguation) page would be a good thing to create. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That seems very reasonable and very likely to stick. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd actually like to thank Joy for this. I obviously think the closure was correct, but wasn't sure where to go from there. The problem is that redirects do not often receive significant or widespread input or discussion (which is fine, they're not articles), but it did feel improper for a discussion to take place, for a consensus to be reached, and then almost immediately an editor who disagreed with the outcome to undo it; if an AfD was closed as Redirect or Delete but the next day an article was restored by !keeper, that wouldn't be kosher. I know DRV isn't technically correct, which is why I was asking Joy on my talkpage about what he thought should be done next, but at least here it can be established that more (talkpage) discussion should take place before the content is changed. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all. I know Joy is familiar with my point though for those not to have followed the conversation at
argue) 20:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
This is an entirely normal case of determining whether Milošović is the
primary topic for people searching for the term "Butcher of the Balkans". If he is, then it is correct that the redirect points to his article as that is what the majority of people are looking for, if he isn't then the disambiguation should be primary (as it is clear that none of the others are the primary topic). Thryduulf (talk) 22:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
That line of thought is both illogical since nobody knows precisely which person a reader is seeking when typing out a long phrase which evidently is not a shortcut, and it runs contrary to your earlier comment during the RfD session in which you stated that redirect serves not as a shortcut but as help for persons aware of the sobriquet but unaware to whom it is attributed. Nobody can answer hypothetical questions. It would have been far different had we been discussing an article title (eg.
argue) 11:58, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
The length factor is completely irrelevant, and there is no practical difference between the Jordan and Danzig arrangements - in both cases there is consensus that there is a primary topic for the relevant term, whether that term is the primary term for the topic is irrelevant. We're choosing between a
Danzig (primary topic exists) or Mercury
(no primary topic exists) situation. My comments are perfectly compatible with my older ones - there are two things people are likely to be looking for when searching for "Butcher of the Balkans": (1) the identity of and information about a specific person who was referred to as such; (2) a list of people who were referred to as this. 1 is far more likely, and so we need to work out which (if any) of the specific people are most likely to be looking for. As there have been 3 people given this name, then there are four places a search for "Butcher of the Balkans" could lead:
  1. Andria Artuković
  2. Ratko Mladić
  3. Slobodan Milošević
  4. Butcher of the Balkans (disambiguation)
Consensus is clear that neither 1 or 2 are the primary topic. That leaves only two options, either Milošević is the primary topic (3) or there is no primary topic (4), and the RfD was clear that the situation on the ground should reflect either one of those positions with a slight favouring of 3 and so that is what was implemented. You are clearly of the opinion that there is no primary topic (4) but because not everybody shares your opinion you must discuss it and gain consensus for a change. We cannot know what everybody wants to view, but we can make educated guesses about whether there is a topic that the significant majority of people wants to view when using a specific search term. These educated guesses are based on multiple metrics, including usage in contemporary reliable sources (because the primary topic can change, e.g. for sources written prior to the 1990s Artuković is clearly primary, for sources after the breakup of Yugoslavia he clearly isn't), prevalence in relevant search terms, page view statistics, and other relevant sources of information. These need to be presented and discussed at a Wikipedia:Requested moves discussion so that consensus can be determined. Thryduulf (talk) 11:04, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as redirect - I was willing to live with BotB going to a disambiguation page, but my opinion is that clearly Milosevic is by far the person best known by this name, and his crimes are possibly more infamous than Artukovic, who was a damn Nazi. Why there was some vagueness to the closing statement, the intention clearly was to keep the redirect as is and to create a new disambiguation page to cover other people. Ego White Tray (talk) 23:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC
is not based in opinions, it's based on an assessment of facts. The "by far" assessment needs to be significantly more than all others combined.
The reason for the huge disparity between the initial 1,900 and the rest isn't obvious. At the same time, I looked up the clean variant:
So even if we use the raw initial numbers, Milosevic is only 60% of the initial total.
In addition, whether you dislike one set of crimes more than another, that also doesn't have to matter to what's the primary topic - indeed, one could easily argue that the long-term significance of Artuković's crimes was obvious from the rise of Milošević - the latter used the story of the former to get where he got. Artuković was called that way thirty years after the crimes, granted, by belligerent attorneys, but still. Milošević was called that way in his heyday, so many of those mentions could be a thing of the moment.
I really don't see a clear proof of a primary topic here. Indeed, we've gone deep into content territory here, again. I think this reinforces my earlier point that the previous RfD discussion was not an exhaustive discussion of the primary topic and that it shouldn't have been used to decide the matter. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:52, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2013_April_19&oldid=1143701304"