Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 April 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 Keep. A disambiguation and a hatnote would probably not be out of order. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:42, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Butcher of the Balkans → Slobodan Milošević (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

This is a rather unusual nomination. As the deletion log shows, this redirect has been repeatedly (re)created and successively deleted with a variety of rationales. It was recreated again today by

• Keep per nominator. Bringing it here for discussion was a good idea, the R3 speedy deletion was obviously incorrect - any term mentioned in the target is almost by definition plausible. I can see why the G10 deletions happened, but as the term is present in the article and supported by citations to reliable sources the "and serve no other purpose" clause of the criterion is not met. I'm wondering whether some language about redirects needs to be added to the explanation of G10 - see Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 02:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep - A well-sourced widely used name like this should never even be considered for deletion. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:54, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per nom. It is widely used.--Charles (talk) 09:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete. It has beed created several times and quickly deleted on account of the term constituting an attack. Furthermore, to my knowledge its authors were short-lived disruptive accounts and the latest publisher (
  argue) 10:25, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Please read
    WP:RNEUTRAL. If reliable sources (and these are not limited to those published by the organisations you list) use non-neutral terms then these are valid redirects. Our articles are neutral, and that includes neutrally reporting non-neutral names and positions held by others. The presence of the redirect is simply allowing users who search for the non-neutral name to find the article they are looking for, where the article will educate them to all sides of the story. Thryduulf (talk) 11:24, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]

I knew that, and don't dispute that. I am just not happy about the manner it was reintroduced and I get the impression doing so is what the shortlived vandal had been primed to do. The rest of the edits surely irrelevant as indeed the block which has yet to be contested.

argue) 14:35, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

• Speedy Keep, the term is/was widely used in news accounts and other neutral venues, especially in reference to the Hague war crimes tribunals before his death. This should never have been deleted under CSD criteria. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 15:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment by main nominator. Well if this is how everybody feels then we may just let it stay though who on earth is going to use it I don't know. I mean I admit I always do
  argue) 20:54, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • The purpose of the redirect isn't to be a shortcut, it's for people who are looking for information about a person they've seen or heard described (or remember being described) as the "Butcher of the Balkans" but who don't know or can't remember his real name. Thryduulf (talk) 23:14, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Got it.

argue) 02:48, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep. This is a perfect example of WP:RNEUTRAL, since the non-neutral name is frequent, and it consistently refers to the redirect's target; we wouldn't benefit from deleting it. Thanks to the "nominator" for bringing it here for discussion (you're right that it's weird; I can't remember seeing other discussions with "keep per nom" votes) in order to get a clearer consensus. Nyttend (talk) 04:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It was created by DE banned user Sinbad Barron, it must be deleted per that. Also, itis unsurced, and i dont see any common use...--WhiteWriter^speaks 18:25, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually it is sourced, see [1] (currently reference 135) and as for common use [2], [3] and [4] rather demonstrate that your assertion is incorrect. Thryduulf (talk) 18:46, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Notice: Someone boldly turned the redirect into a disambig which lists Slobodan Milošević and Ratko Mladić. Any objections? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Nyttend notes, the epithet appears to be used "consistently" to refer to Milošević. However, if reliable sources have used it to refer to someone else, then a dab page would certainly be the way to go... although I can see it becoming a POV magnet in no time. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Milošević is the primary use of the term. It is also, but less often used for Mladić (who is more usually described as the "Butcher of Bosnia") and also Ante Pavelić. "Butcher of Bosnia" is a dab page between Mladić and Radovan Karadžić (the latter also being called the "Butcher of Belgrade"). It was created yesterday so doesn't give any insight into how much of a vandal/POV magnet it is (in any case that is dealt with by protection if needed, it doesn't stop us creating a page that is needed). I wonder if an article about the epithet would be possible? As for this case, I think the redirect to Milošević should stay and the dab page be linked from a hatnote. Thryduulf (talk) 00:31, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The label bestowed on Mladić is far more common than most realise[5], Tenth paragraph. There are many more. All use it having forgotten to whom they attributed the term years earlier. This is the problem with derogatory labels, Milošević was widely being called "The Second Hitler" during the Kosovo crisis whilst more discerning analysts realised that this label had been stuck to more than 20 statesmen prior to him after WWII. If I am not mistaken, Saddam is not the only "Butcher of Baghdad".

Stop trying to hide the facts with your racket. You are covering up for Milosevic in the way all nationalists here do. He was Butcher of the Balkans, we all saw what he did and the matters are well sourced. Mladic is okay to say Butcher of Bosnia as he commited the Srebrenica massacre and other such atrocities. These are in Bosnia. Keithstanton (talk) 08:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"We all saw" did we? I suppose you have a better view than I did, personally he never invited me to see what he was doing. I am covering up for nothing, and regarding Mladić, click on the citations.

argue) 08:51, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

I've already provided references that support that "Butcher of the Balkans" sometimes refers to Mladic

TALK) 15:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete. Personally, this seems all but encyclopedic, and the fact that some media used the term in order to fuel up the military attack on Milosevic regime doesn´t make it encyclopedic either. Anyway, besides a mention on Milosevic article, what would be the use of it anyway? I am not a Milosevic admirer or anything of the kind, but I am against such unecessary inflamatory redirects, which would potentially become a favorite quote for non-Serb nationalists to add around articles. FkpCascais (talk) 14:41, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any redirect can be misused. That is a problem with the editor doing the misusing, not the redirect. The point of redirects from terms the media use is that people use those terms to find Wikipedia articles (again see
    WP:RNEUTRAL). Redirects are not articles and so what matters is plausibility as a search term, not encyclopaedicness (although there being a sourced statement in the article that he has been given this epithet does point towards it being encyclopaedic). Thryduulf (talk) 09:53, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Speedy Keep. Widely used and supported by reliable sources. --◅
  TALK) 15:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Well who would have guessed it? A list that is growing. I realise what started out as an opportunistic shot at an attack has given us a disambiguation page. Slobo tops the bill, no question, but so long as the term applies to others, it has to be a disambiguation.

argue) 18:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

There has to be disambiguation, yes, but this title does not have to be a dab page - if there is a primary topic then his should be a redirect and either hatnotes or Butcher of the Balkans (disambiguation) should contain the disambiguation. Thryduulf (talk) 09:53, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid this is where I believe differently. I mean, an article title is one thing but a redirect? The three instances at present all seem to wear the label for much the same reason. We all know that Milošević is top of the pecking order but this just leads back to an earlier point raised, not verbatim but I recall, "supposing someone heard the term but could not remember to whom it was attributed, he just types the entry and he's there - it was Milošević". We now know that this may not be so. Now in light of the fact that the page was deleted several times and dismissed as an attack - which it is given that nobody would adopt the term nor be referred to as such by the population sympathetic to his policies - I believe it best to stop at the disambiguation and go no further. I am happy for the page to state that it most commonly refers to Milošević. To have come this far, I've made compromises given I originally supported deletion. I've seen it is no longer the best option but looking at developments occurring within the course of this discussion, it is clear that an abrupt blast to the Milošević article is indeed an attack, and as we've established, it will not be used for shortcut reasons and none of us can prove that it is the true target 100% of the time. My proposal is to keep the current setting.

argue) 20:15, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

• Milošević is indeed the most common target of this moniker, but Artuković isn't uncommon, either, and has historical precedence - regardless of any accuracy concerns there - referring to Artuković like that had already gained traction in the 1980s. I just found out that there are references to Mladić like that, and they also don't seem very uncommon, and some to Pavelić which look like a fluke. A disambiguation page seems like an appropriate way to deal with this. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:56, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I should mention that the revision by Neutral Fair Guy should be deleted under CSD G5, and possibly Keithstanton too, cf. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sinbad Barron. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:46, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:30, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• A:. A:. & E:. F:. → Co-Freemasonry (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 
• Ancient, Accepted and Esoteric Freemasons → Co-Freemasonry#The Grand Lodge of Ancient, Accepted and Esoteric Freemasons (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

These redirects should be deleted, because they go to a deleted section – neither the initialism nor what it stands for is mentioned in the article. – PAINE ELLSWORTH ^CLIMAX! 16:37, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PS. I could find no other article on Freemasons that includes this initialism nor what it stands for.

• Delete the former as a rarely used, oddly punctuated initialism whose expansion or meaning isn't given in the article. Google suggests there's a variety of ways of punctuating A. A. & E. F. and this isn't the most common, and it's certainly not the first people would try or expect to find. Not quite decided about the second. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:57, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 Snow Retarget (non-admin closure) to Ring Ring. It's extremely unlikely that there is a better target. If there is a better one, no prejudice against bringing this back to RFD, or just boldly retargeting it. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 06:05, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Ring-Ring → List of Drawn Together characters (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

An unprintworthy redirect that seems to only be used because of the racist joke the target originally had as part of its schtick. It is at least not a valid search term for the current source.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:04, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to the dab page at Ring Ring. A very likely (and probably printworthy) search term for at least the first three entries on that list. Thryduulf (talk) 19:44, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ringtone should be added to that dab page (it represents the standard landline ring pattern in the UK at least), but I can't think how to phrase it. Thryduulf (talk) 19:49, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • How about adding it to the page's see also section? - Eureka Lott 01:03, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 Discussion relisted at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 April 4#List of bus routes in Cambridgeshire. There were too many recent RfD requests redundantly referring to redirects with similiar naming convections. (Non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 02:23, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Public transport in Havering (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete
   ]