Talk:Disgusta

Redirect to Augusta, Georgia

The nickname "Disgusta," while derogatory, is in very common use by residents of the area as a nickname for Augusta, Georgia. This is well-documented within the article itself, complete with properly cited references from the local newspaper (a reliable source). Having Disgusta as a redirect to Augusta is appropriate. Kevyn (talk) 16:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is an extensive debate on this issue in the archived talk page for Augusta, Georgia. Kevyn (talk) 18:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like sourcing is the only problem here. Perhaps we could add the sources to the redirect page, so if anyone queries it, the sources will be available on that page instead of within the article. I'm not sure how to do that without halting the redirect -- <noinclude> maybe -- but I'm sure it can be done. Then the article can be redirected to Augusta, Georgia, because it forms part of that article. Thoughts? PeterSymonds (talk) 18:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a source provided on the main Augusta article. "Disgusta" is even listed as one of the city's nicknames on the main article page. Sure it may be a derogatory label, but it's a legitimate one that is widely used. Some people are trying to remove any legitimate information on Augusta that they dont like or find negative. There are several sources referencing the "Disgusta" nickname.. even a series of articles in the Augusta Chronicle, the city's main daily newspaper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.238.183 (talk) 19:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale for redirect to article, instead of Wiktionary

Currently, this page is a soft redirect to the Wiktionary entry for Disgusta. I disagree with this decision.

First, I cite Wikipedia:Redirect, subsection "What do we use redirects for: Alternative Names." That section states: "This is a redirect from a title that is another name, a pseudonym, a nickname, or a synonym." The nickname "Disgusta" clearly qualifies here.
Second, under the section "When should we delete a redirect?"subsection "Reasons for deleting", #3 states: "The redirect is offensive, such as "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" to "Joe Bloggs", unless "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" is discussed in the article." Since the nickname Disgusta is discussed in the article, it clearly shouldn't be deleted.

I think that the reason that this is causing people trouble is fear of offense... but as a former resident of Augusta, I know that this nickname is in common use. Nicknames like this are both encyclopedic, and possibly relevant to future historians and researchers who want to know how the city is referred to. Kevyn (talk) 18:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's the second one that makes me agree. It's now redirected to Augusta; it's discussed in the article, and therefore qualifies. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with the redirect to Augusta, per Kevyn's arguments. Tan | 39 20:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the discussion in the Augusta article is fairly trivial and was remarkably hard to find. On the other hand, the Wiktionary page immediately answers the implied question that I am asking by following the link - "what is 'Disgusta'?" (And despite being a former resident, I'd never heard that nickname before.) The Wiktionary article includes a back-link to the Wikipedia page on Augusta so even though it's two page-loads, I actually get my information faster through the Wiktionary redirect and in the order that I expect as a reader than I do through the Wikipedia redirect. Rossami (talk) 22:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Factually incorrect

The soft redirect to Wiktionary on the page now says "Wikipedia does not currently have an encyclopedia article for Disgusta."

But that isn't true. It's called Augusta, Georgia. kevyn (talk) 01:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]