- 吉林市 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Moved from RFD Frazzydee|✍ 05:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following was moved from RfD. Votes were made at RFD, not DRV
re-directs from native name are allowed and encouraged by many
Keep/Restore where applicable
Since Uther refuses to listen to me, I shall voice my complaint here. He has been off a rampage in deleting many, if not the majority of, the re-directs from Chinese (both simplified and Traditional) that I have created. Since the vast majority of these re-directs match up directly with their article titles (i.e. 吉林市 is Jilin City), they are not inaccurate. Furthermore, foreign-language re-directs are not mentioned under the 'reasons for deleting' subsection of WP:REDIRECT. They also satisfy the requirements for re-directs from foreign language. I do not have the patience to reverse all of Uther's pernicious deletions, so I ask another admin to do so. In the mean time, I will see whether other users create more Chinese re-directs. 华钢琴49 (TALK) 03:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I see no error here. There is no expectation that someone will stumble onto the English language Wikipedia and type in a non-Roman character set to search for an article. "Reasons for deleting" is not an exhaustive list. Further, WP:FORRED is an essay, nowhere near a commandment, and given the examples of what to keep and what not, I feel my deletions have been in keeping with the spirit if not the letter of the essay. I await assessment here before continuing. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- the error is that there is a province named Jilin, as well as a city. There currently is a re-direct as follows: 吉林 ---> Jilin (the province). but you deleted the one for the city. 'no expectation that someone will stumble onto the English language Wikipedia and type in a non-Roman character set to search for an article.' did you look at the talk page? several people have commented specifically on non-Roman scripts; they have said that if they 'stumble' on a character representation somewhere (doesn't have to be on WIKI), then they would like to search it in the box and be able to re-directed. Obviously, if they knew how to 'type in a non-Roman character set to search for an article', then they would probably know the romanisation (pinyin is a major input method for Chinese), and would just go directly put the romanisation in; however, that fails in some cases, e.g. Hohhot (Huhehaote, without tone marks). I will allow a compromise with the 朝阳区 and 东方红, but refuse to compromise with the hundreds, if not thousands, of re-directs from non-Roman scripts. but thank you for pausing before continuing on your campaign. 华钢琴49 (TALK) 04:55, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- should we move this discussion elsewhere? this discussion is not limited to Jilin City, but rather to the thousands of non-Roman re-direcs that are potentially at risk. 华钢琴49 (TALK) 04:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You might want an RfC, but these have been discussed at RfD before, IIRC. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 05:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- RESTORE/KEEP These seem to have usually been kept at RfD, so deleting it would not be uncontroversial housekeeping. And I don't see why someone would not copy-paste some non-English word into wikipedia to search for it. It seems to be a rather obvious and likely thing to do. Further, Chinese named things usually have multiple romanizations, so it may be easier to search for it from the Chinese character name in the first place. We even have a disambiguation task force for Chinese lettering, WP:CJKV! The reasoning also fails "Noncriteria #16". 70.29.208.247 (talk) 04:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep/Restore as a valid redirect for the page mentioned. This has already been discussed and redirects are cheap, so there is no valid reason to delete them. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Despite being an experienced English Wikipedia contributor (4 years, 5 GAs) who is fairly fluent in English, I (a Chinese Singaporean) occasionally conduct searches in Chinese. For example, last week, I was looking for an article about a Mandopop singer and I knew her Chinese name, but not her name in English. I believe many other less experienced users who are not native speakers of English may find such redirects useful. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 10:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as long as the only reason for deleting them is a pedantic "this is English wikipedia". As a sidenote, it is quite easy to make up a few examples where knowledge of the pinyin transliteration of a group of characters won't help you much, for example 陝西 or names like 欧阳修. It gets more complicated when you are looking up stuff outside the PRC, even for Chinese people like 韩瑞生. Yaan (talk) 17:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedural close; list at WP:DRV. This is essentially a contest of a deletion, and the deleting admin stated his/her justification here already. If the deletion is felt to be improper, RfD is not the forum for discussion. DRV is. B.Wind (talk) 18:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I hope such a procedural close does not result in our Keep !votes being disregarded. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 02:17, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Rather than a close, it should probably be "moved" across, with a break between where the RFD ends and the DRV begins. --Taelus (talk) 15:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above votes/comments were from an RfD nomination. The following votes are from DRV
- Restore. Redirects are cheap and it is entirely possible that some users might punch in foreign language search terms into en:wiki. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore – it would seem a valuable addition to include such redirects in eng wikipedia, for the benefit of the worldwide audience (much as I hope that Fr:wiki will have a redirect for Marseilles ... Londres?). Occuli (talk) 23:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a valid G6. G6 is for uncontroversial deletions, and this is clearly controversial, so it needs to be at RFD. Speedy overturn G6, with no prejudice against a subsequent listing at RFD.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 10:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Already tried there. Someone asked us to move our discussion here instead of continuing it there. We don't wish to be a pinball! See this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion#.E5.90.89.E6.9E.97.E5.B8.82
华钢琴49 (TALK) 14:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not quite. You were asked to contest deletion here and here is the appropriate place for contesting deletions (It isn't the correct place for arguing the merits or otherwise of the redirect, it's about the deletion process). What I believe S Marshall is suggeting is that the speedy deletion was incorrect so the redirect should be restored, after that if the original deleter (or anyone else) wants to argue for deletion of this or similar then RFD is the place. I'm not sure I'd totally agree with that, it's clearly a broader issue beyond this one redirect. If the deleter believes the community as a broader whole agrees these have no place here (rather than just RFD or DRV participants) then some sort of centralised discussion (like RFC) would be the way to go. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 16:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, that's exactly what I'm saying. The G6 is invalid and I think that as an overriding consideration, DRV must be seen to overturn bad speedy deletions. DRV must be seen to provide FairProcess on demand. But to say that the G6 is invalid -- as I believe we must do at DRV -- is not to say that the redirect must be kept. That decision properly belongs at RFD. Therefore, though the G6 must been overturned, that should not in itself be prejudicial to a RFD (about which I would be agnostic).—S Marshall Talk/Cont 20:03, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore G6 is for uncontroversial deletions, and this one is not. For the deleting admin to persist it it after it became very clear that it was controversial seems a little POINTY., when he could very easily have restored, and made the request at RfD. FWIW, as someone with no knowledge of Chinese at all, I was unaware that we were making these redirects from proper names; I can think of times I would have used it on a Chinese name I encountered, for anyone can copypaste unicode characters. 17:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- Restore. If redirects from Chinese-language articles is "Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup", then why do we have {{R from alternate language}} and Category:Redirects from Chinese-language terms? The official and most commonly-used city name is "吉林市". Why have only the English transliteration without even a redirect from the actual city name? The original deletion was a mistake, and in any case absolutely not in conformance with CSD policy. -Frazzydee|✍ 05:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore per Frazzydee (talk · contribs) and per my nomination of 173 redirects above. Cunard (talk) 05:59, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and restore. The page doesn't fall under a speedy criteria and thus should be taken to RfD if there are further concerns for deletion. --Taelus (talk) 09:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Several !votes above are merged from Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 April 18. Tim Song (talk) 11:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
