March 4

Boston →Boston (disambiguation)

This is more to get the latest round of edit warring ended on where this redirect should point and is not to delete the redirect. As thehistory indicates, this article's location has alternated fromBoston, Massachusetts,Boston, Lincolnshire, andBoston (disambiguation) with a majority of the time spent at the US city. I'm also not suggesting where the redirect should go in this nomination just reflecting where it is currently pointing as I type this rfd out.Bobblehead18:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Target toBoston, Massachusetts, as that is obviously what most people will be searching for. Yes,obviously. ---RockMFR20:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Target to Boston, MA per RockMFR.John Reaves(talk)23:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Target toBoston, Massachusetts per RockMFR, obviously. --CapitalR00:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Similar articles about big cities in the USA only refer to the city, and not the state name (i.e.,Philadelphia, andChicago.) Move the Boston, Massachusetts page to Boston.AEMoreira04228100:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This isn't amove request. It's where you think the redirect should point not where the article itself should be located. --Bobblehead01:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This should absolutely go straight to the disambiguation page, as Boston is also the name of an extremely famous rock group whose article is almost impossible to locate on Wikipedia through any other means.--Badmuthahubbard09:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• This should redirect toBoston, Massachusetts. See the interwiki links - in most other wikipedias, the articleBoston describes the american city. It is far more known and important than other Bostons, including the "original" one it was named after. IMHO, this would be the best solution for en.wp, too. --Magadan?!13:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Target toBoston (disambiguation), and let each visitor decide what he means. To targetBoston, Massachusetts is to bring in POV since there are so many uses of "Boston". Usual US usage, in my experience, is city, state anyway, since even in the USA names tend to be reused extensively.SMeeds15:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Target to Boston, Mass., as it would be the intended target for a vast majority of people searching "Boston." I am all for fighting systemic bias on Wikipedia, but having the redirect target Boston, MA seems to be the most common sense option here.youngamerican(ahoy hoy)15:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Target to Boston, Mass., by far the most intended target. --Golbez23:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Target toBoston, Massachusetts. The purpose of redirects is to make searching for and finding articles easier. I think its safe to say most people will be looking for Boston, MA. --Black Falcon05:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Surely,Black Falcon, your statement is self-contradictory. Redirection toBoston (disambiguation) makes it easier to find any use of "Boston". I wouldn't argue with the suggestion that out of those looking for "Boston", more are looking for "Boston (Massachusetts)" than anything else, but surely WP needs to support minority searches as well as majority ones.SMeeds11:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not believe it to be self-contradicting. As you have noted, redirecting toBoston (disambiguation) makes it easier to findany use of Boston. However, I thinkmost people will be looking forone particular use of Boston, namely Boston, Massachusetts. Consider "Paris" for instance. How likely is it that someone who types "Paris" in the search field will be looking forParis, Idaho orParis (genus)? --Black Falcon18:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Target toBoston (disambiguation), perUser:Bobblehead.Jhamez8416:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Per me? I said in the nomination that I didn't have an opinion on where it points (I could care less). The only reason why I putBoston (disambiguation) in the header was because at the time I made the request that's where the redirectwas pointed. An hour after I made the nominationUser:G-Manchanged the redirect to point to Boston, MA. --Bobblehead01:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Target toBoston (disambiguation) perSMeeds andBobblehead. --Noira18:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Target toBoston, Massachusetts, per above. SeeSeattle. --Lukobe19:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Target toBoston, Massachusetts, Clearly the primary meaning.G-Man*21:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't know what's wrong with me, but when I hear Boston, I think ofthe band before the city. But I concur with all the other votes, so 'Target toBoston, Massachusetts.JuJube08:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Target toBoston (disambiguation) perSMeeds,Bobblehead,Jhamez84, andNoira. DDStretch  (talk)15:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Target toBoston, Massachusetts. Should have been moved, in my opinion. --Groggy DiceT |C15:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Target toBoston, Massachusetts per above. This should not even be worthy of discussion. I believe that it should be the location of the article, but I understand there is opposition to such a move. --Dhartung |Talk20:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Target toBoston, Massachusetts per above. Major world city versus relatively small backcountry namesake town versus various obscure places and meanings. Not even a contest; at least 90% of all people who type in "Boston" are looking for the major world city, and we should help them find it. —Cuiviénen22:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Target toBoston, Massachusetts perWP:DAB#Primary topic. See the example on how we handleRome. This isexactly the same thing putting little in doubt.ju66l3r05:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Target toBoston, Massachusetts. This shouldn't even be an argument. Boston, MA is by far the most common use of the word "Boston." The band isn't an issue as it applies mostly to a specific generation, rather than all people. Same goes for Boston, England. Outside of Lincolnshire, no one associates Boston with the English town, but rather the American city that is a major international center of education, biotech, finance, and famous for its history. The Oxford American Dictionary defines "Boston" as "a city in eastern Massachusetts, the capital of the state, on Massachusetts Bay; pop. 589,141. It was founded c. 1630 by the Massachusetts Bay Company under its governor, John Winthrop (1588–1649). Boston was the scene of many disturbances that led to the American Revolution at the end of the 18th century." No other definition is offered...i think it's pretty clear what the redirect page should point to.Lexicon50622:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I take issue with the claim that "Outside of Lincolnshire, no one associates Boston with the English town", as it is not, in my own direct experience, true. I also fail to see how this claim can be verified without engaging in new research. It should therefore not form a strong part in the deliberations that are made as to what to do here. I also fail to see why the "OxfordAmerican Dictionary" (my emphasis) should be used as a good authoritative source here, as its name is suggestive of issues discussed inWP:POV (see section on biased writing, for that is what it is in the context of the discussion here.) DDStretch  (talk)01:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Target toBoston (disambiguation). As noted, above, the rock group is almost impossible to locate without that. But, further, the discussion shouldn't behere. It should be atTalk:Boston. —Arthur Rubin |(talk)01:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Target toBoston, Massachusetts. What part of [[Boston (band)|]] is so hard?AaronSw13:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm surprised that you (AaronSw) altered the pageBoston earlier today from what it currently was whilst the discussion here is still in progress. This would mean that the RFD notice would no longer seen by ordinary users typing in the linkBoston. This would have the effect that fewer people could see the notice and thus have the opportunity to be alerted and comment here. So, I've reverted it. DDStretch  (talk)14:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand what part of "Do you want the town or the band" is so hard. Everyone's arguing as to which town people want and ignoring the other use(s). I'm personally not even a fan, but as a casual user, I knew no other way to look up a band than to type the name of the band in the search page. In reality I find it hard to believe that very many people want the town, but I'm content with a disambiguation link.--Badmuthahubbard00:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Target toBoston, Massachusetts. I couldn't believe wikilinking toBoston led to a "we don't know where to redirect" page.Paris andLondon don't go to disambiguation whether you want the Texas and Ontario cities.--Boffob18:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Target toBoston, Massachusetts.Boston, Massachusetts is going to need a disambiguation link at the top of the article anyway.140.247.183.12401:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• target toBoston, Massachusetts. The established practice on Wikipedia is to redirect to one article if it is by far the most likely, and the put theBoston redirects here, for other uses see Boston (disambiguation) notice at the top of the article.Tommy1111104:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• This should absolutelytarget toBoston, Massachusetts. The established practice on Wikipedia is to redirect to one article if it is by far the most likely, and the put theBoston redirects here, for other uses see Boston (disambiguation) notice at the top of the article.

I an a uberuser of Wikipedia, and I typed "Boston" because I wanted to find the band of that name. I expected to be taken to the NA city and use the link to the disambiguation page to find the band, and whose lead singer died today.

Instead I am dismayed that I found this discussion. The discussion on the "Boston redirect" page goes back to 2004! Can't we decide and be done? Endless debate is not productive.

As I type this there are 20 votes here for "Boston, Massachusetts" and 5 votes for "Boston (disambiguation)". That should end it. 80% want a search for "Boston" to go to the "Boston, Massachusetts" page with the disambiguation link.

Nwbeeson12:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Target toBoston, Massachusetts. I am happy to accept a redirect toBoston, Massachusetts as long as there is a link from there toBoston (disambiguation), bearing in mind that no such link existed until I put one there on26th February 2007.SMeeds23:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Target toBoston, Massachusetts. Happy St. Patty's day! --Kendrick7^talk02:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-globalization movement and the Middle East →Anti-globalization and antisemitism

offensive redirect; would repoint toAnti-globalization but there's no content there on the middle east --Kendrick7^talk19:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure how a reasonable person would conclude that theredirect is offensive if the destination article's title is not. Nevertheless,keep becauseit documents a pagemove of a page which was extensively edited before the move.Rossami(talk)05:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note:Moved to generate more discussion.John Reaves(talk)20:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It is quite easy for a redirect to be offensive without the destination title being so. For instance, ifpoodle redirected toTony Blair, that would be offensive (all personal opinions on Blair aside). The "offensiveness" here is in equating "the Middle East" with "anti-Semitism". I could see no mention of a pagemove or a merge in the article's edit history, so I must say delete. --Black Falcon05:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excuse my poor choice of words. I wasn't trying to say thatno redirect could be offensive, simply that I don't see howthis one could be so considered. The topic and tone of the destination article has shifted over time (often with great debate) and at times the page's topicwas Anti-globalization and the Middle East. A redirect is an adminstrative tool, not an endorsement. It is notpatently offensive like the redirect of an obscenity to a biography would be.
    On further investigation, I retract the comment about the pagemove. The destination page has been extensively moved during it's history - and several of those moves predated the system-generated notes that provide the convenient links between the old and new sites. Unfortunately, I must have gotten lost in the audit trail and confused this particular page with one of the other merged/moved pages. I still think that this (and the several similar redirects created about the same time and listed in the old VfD debate) should be kept because they were part of the resolution of a particularly nasty POV-forking debate.Rossami(talk)23:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-globalization and Anti-Zionism →Anti-globalization and antisemitism

offensive redirect; calls people who opposeIsraeli nationalism racists --Kendrick7^talk19:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm afraid I don't see how theredirect is any more (or less) offensive that the destination article's title. Looking at both page's histories, the redirect was created in order to consolidate a very contentious debate and to prevent the inappropriate forking of the article.Keep unless there's a better reason for deletion.Rossami(talk)05:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note:Moved to generate more discussion.John Reaves(talk)20:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The "offensiveness" here is in equating opposition with one form of nationalism with prejudice against an entire people. I could see no mention of a pagemove or a merge in the article's edit history, so I must say delete. --Black Falcon05:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The merger was of title and intended topic (not strictly page-content). This was hotly debated in the oldVfD debate about the article and is documented there. The creation of the redirects was a part of the resolution of the forking.
    Remember that redirects are administrative tools, not endorsements. This redirect does not endorse the perception you describe, it merely documents the evolution of the article as it's tone and content have changed.Rossami(talk)23:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I read the discussion and it is one of the 6 titles proposed near the bottom of the discussion byUser:Sam Spade between 13:54 and 14:01 UTC on April 7, 2005. However, the actual redirect was created only after the VFD discussion (on April 10, 2005 at 11:15 UTC). Prior to that discussion, a page under that title (as an article or a redirect) did not exist (see thedeletion log). Moreover, according to a comment byUser:Jayjg,"The sources describe it as 'Anti-Semitism', not 'Anti-Zionism'". Given that theprimary purpose of redirects should be to aid navigation, the question becomes: would anyone search for this? I think it to be likely that people will confuse "anti-Semitism" with "anti-Zionism", but I find it less plausible that they will search for this phrase exactly, with this particular capitalisation. This, coupled with the statement by Jayjg, the low number of Ghits for the phrase ([1]; a rough, even if imperfect, indicator), and the potential POV issues lead me to favour deletion of the redirect page. --Black Falcon01:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete perBlack FalconAlgebraist21:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a more likely (though not that likely) search term than "Middle East." --Groggy DiceT |C16:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]