Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 August 14

August 14[edit]

Lemon Party → Shock site[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 00:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lemonparty.org → Shock site

Lemonparty → Shock site

Lemon party → Shock site

Yet another Shock site redirect that isn't actually covered at Shock site and won't be due to a lack of verifiable sources and the fact that Lemonparty.org fails WP:WEB. The redirect just creates confusion because after reading the Shock site article, the editor has no real idea exactly what Lemon Party is, which makes this an unnecessary redirect.--Isotope23 ^talk 20:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Why isn't Lemonparty covered at Shock Site? Lemonparty is a well-known shock site, so I will check to see if I can discover why Lemonparty was removed. If Lemonparty is to be put back, then this debate will end and the redirect will be kept. If Lemonparty is deemed non-notable, then this redirect should be deleted. WhisperToMe 21:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, nobody has provided any sort of reliable sourcing that would allow the addition of Lemonparty at Shock site, hence the RFD. In my opinion at least, if Lemon party could be sourced well enough that it actually should be at Shock site I'd be fine with redirects. Right now though they cause more confusion than anything else.--Isotope23 ^talk 22:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Stålmannen → Superman[edit]

The result of the debate was no consensus. There is disagreement on whether the occasional exonym-type redirect should be kept or not, although at the same time, I don't believe anyone is suggesting we should create (or allow the creation of) hundreds of millions of foreign-language redirects. This closure should not serve as a precedent to keep these; however, it should encourage further discussion on the matter, whether it be a guideline or a change in the search software. --- RockMFR 01:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This Swedish search term is extremely unlikely on the English Wikipedia, oh and the reason I didn't speedy it is that I thought it COULD be invalid reason. So I say delete. TheBlazikenMaster 11:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's the problem? It's just a redirect, not like it's a non-notable article. — EliasAlucard|Talk 13:46 14 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

The problem is non-English redirects shouldn't be on the English Wikipedia, non-English redirects should never be unless it's the character's name in the official language, if the character isn't from an English speaking country. The problem is it's very unlikely. TheBlazikenMaster 11:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course non-English redirects should exist on the English Wikipedia. That's called a redirect from an alternative language. Keep Mel sa ran 14:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is non-English redirects shouldn't be on the English Wikipedia — Why not? — EliasAlucard|Talk 18:38 14 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

I see no harm in this. Fwiiw, en-wiki currently mentions the Swedish name of Superman in three articles. Redirects are cheap. dab (𒁳) 12:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, non-English redirects are useful and this one is also clearly harmless. Kusma (talk) 14:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find it irrational to not include non-English redirects. This is very useful. I usually add non-English redirects, because sometimes, I don't know what this and that is called in English, and I search for it by its Swedish name. I see it as a more efficient way to find what you're looking for. — EliasAlucard|Talk 18:38 14 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
Comment I don't actually understand, normally when I nominate Non-English redirects I get support, but not this time. Non-English redirects should only be if it's official, or if it's important part of the history of the character. Ok, I might be wrong about nominating this. But this isn't over yet, I have feeling that before closing, I will get at least one deletion vote, besides my own. TheBlazikenMaster 18:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, how come when I nominated Duckburg related redirects I got support and not here? TheBlazikenMaster 18:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's very strange indeed. Non-English redirects are actually pretty common and aid non-native speakers of English in navigating, see also the template. That nomination got one delete !vote, which said "Instead of doing a cross-language redirect, it should link to Wikipedias in other languages when appropriate". That is absolutely not true. We shouldn't have redirects to other Wikipedias, but rather redirects to the corresponding English-language article, which probably has an interwiki link anyway. See also this debate. If I cared at all about those redirects, I would put them up for DRV :) Mel sa ran 18:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: I don't think the fact that we have a category and template for non-English redirects means that every non-English redirect should be kept. I think we should absolutely keep native-language redirects for non-English topics, i.e. a Russian language redirect to a Russian musical group or a Korean language redirect for a Korean book. But I don't think we need a Korean language redirect for a Russian musical group—that way lies madness. This is a bit of a borderline case, since Superman has worldwide notability, but I still think this is unnecessary. If kept, should only be on the basis that the Swedish version of Superman is notable, not because we want every alternative-language redirect that anyone could possibly create. Xtifr _tälk 23:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We do not delete useless redirects (redirects are cheap), we only delete harmful redirects. Kusma (talk) 04:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Absolutely false! We delete useless redirects all the time. Since redirects are cheap, we set the bar for defining "useful" very very low, but we still delete useless redirects. Note that we even have a speedy deletion criterion (WP:CSD#R3) for "implausible typos", yet there's real argument against having implausible typo redirects except that they are utterly and completely useless. In any case, my argument is that this redirect is harmful, though not very much--mostly as a bad precedent. Xtifr _tälk 07:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would really really appreciate it if someone showed me many great examples of Non-English titles redirecting to the page with the English name that aren't official. For example, a Japanese title of a movie that's officially from France, something like that. Keep in mind that this redirect is useless if you can't find some of those examples. TheBlazikenMaster 09:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you guys wanna keep it at least show me some examples. TheBlazikenMaster 20:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Redirects are cheap but should meet some rationale and translation itself isn't one. For this we have interwiki links from the English to the Swedish wikipedia and vice versa. The template Template:R from alternative language refers explicitly to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) and the idea is to have a native name as redirect as well as an explanation in the article if we convert a native title of some Non-english topic to English. So it is correct to have Superman redirect to Stålmannen in the Swedish wiki as it is explained as original title in the article, while Stålmannen is not an alternate name in the English context and correctly not mentioned in Superman. --Tikiwont 15:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks like I am getting more support. There are about five days left, I knew I would get at least one support. TheBlazikenMaster 18:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rediects are cheap. Its an accurate term for the redirect. meshach 20:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Example: If you guys wanna keep it at least show me some examples. — Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei>Nazi Party, Salonica>Thessaloniki, Köln>Cologne. — EliasAlucard|Talk 00:07 18 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
  - Those are not very good examples, because they are redirects from the native name (endonym) to the English name (exonym). Thessaloniki even has "Salonica" bolded as an alternative name in the opening sentence. Mel sa ran 22:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I need real example, not from the original language. For example, a name of a band in French that's a band that's officially from a Japan. I can't understand this discussion if I don't get good examples of non-English redirects to pages that aren't the official language of this subject. I find it ridiculous that you just say "Keep, unharmful." unharmful is not a valid reason for keeping. There are about four days, I need good examples before then, and the examples you provided are not the examples I asked for. TheBlazikenMaster 22:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IMPORTANT!!! I still need a good example of Non-English redirects (besides this one) that redirects to a subject that isn't the official language. I will renominate this in October 5th (that should give us enough time to find the good examples), I need valid ones. For example, the French name of a Chinese car that redirects to that car. If you want to keep it at least give me good examples. I will renominate this in October if I don't get the required examples by the end of the discussion, you can count on that. TheBlazikenMaster 22:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See Dressuur, which was created after this debate. Mel sa ran 22:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good enough for me!!! I understand now that this is to prevent redirects to other language wikis. So let the discussion continue. TheBlazikenMaster 22:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment I can't believe you care that much about this. It's just a redirect. It's even a proper one. It's not going to harm anybody. — EliasAlucard|Talk 15:28 20 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Foreign language redirects should be kept only if the foreign-language term has special relevance (e.g., redirecting Köln to Cologne). We do not need 7000 foreign-language redirects (# of languages listed by Ethnologue) for every page on Wikipedia. We do not even need one. I'm unconvinced by arguments that allowing foreign-language redirects prevents the creation of inter-wiki redirects: what's to stop us from simply deleting inappropriate inter-wiki redirects? There is ample precedent to delete such redirects: see here and here, for instance. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 15:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why would you delete them? They can aid non-native speakers of English in navigating, and they don't do any harm. Melsaran (talk) 19:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - A few reasons:
    1. That's what the interwiki links at the bottom of most pages are for. Someone who searches (in Google, Yahoo, or what have you) for Stålmannen will be taken to the Swedish-language entry and they can then navigate to the English-language article.
    2. This is the English-language Wikipedia. I hate that argument when it is applied to content (usually to justify deletion of articles about non-US/UK people, places, and events), but think it is appropriate in the case of redirects.
    3. There's a good chance that non-native speakers of English who don't know the name of what they're looking for will not possess a sufficient understanding of the language to be able to read/comprehend the article.
    4. Wikipedia is not a translation service.
    5. I don't think it's beneficial to justify the creation of 14 billion redirects (2 million articles * 7000 languages). — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - - You have a valid point, although I'd still say that they don't really do any harm. I think it would be a good thing if we had some centralised place for this (maybe WT:RFD) and create a general guideline on such redirects after we achieve a consensus, because repeating the same discussion with every nomination isn't really helpful. Melsaran (talk) 20:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Repeating the same discussion on every nomination isn't helpful, but a substantial precedent has been built over time that random translation redirects are to be deleted (I only linked 2 discussions that I had personally initiated ... there are many more in the archives). Since translation redirects don't come up all too frequently, I'm not sure there's a need to craft a separate guideline for them; discussion and consensus at RfD should suffice, I think. If you want to start a discussion, Wikipedia talk:Redirects might be a better place than WT:RFD (which is more about the deletion process). Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I still find this redirect extremely unlikely on the English Wikipedia, so stop keep on asking me why I find it unnecessary, I already stated it many times. TheBlazikenMaster 21:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's going to close today, I guess my nomination failed, but I still think it's unnecessary. TheBlazikenMaster 23:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's premature to say the nomination failed. I don't mean to toot my own horn, but I view my comment above as an adequate rebuttal to the arguments that such redirects are either useful or necessary. In addition, there is substantial precedent for deletion. I expect that the closing admin will take all of this into consideration. It may end up not being enough, but I view the case for deleting to be rather strong. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Foreign language redirects are a good idea in some cases - original language names of books/films and place names in their native languages spring to mind. But we should not have redirects from every translation of every topic. The number of redirects created as a result would be absurd. As said above, we are not a translation service and redirects should be plausible search terms to use in an english langauge encyclopedia. As an individual redirect this one is pretty harmless but as a precedent it is going down a route we should not take. Interwiki links work well in these cases - google should take someone looking for the Swedish word to the Swedish wiki first, where they will find the link to us. WjBscribe 02:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This discussion can go on forever, NOT. It's about time ot close this discussion. TheBlazikenMaster 09:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Template:Illegalparty → Template:DIY party[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 23:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template redirect without any conceivable use. --MZMcBride 03:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since when are DIY parties necessarily illegal? Mel sa ran 14:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Members of Polish Sejm 2005-2009 → List of Sejm members (2005–2009)[edit]

The result of the debate was keep. WjBscribe 23:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

redirect article title is unlikely to be typed. Legacy list, replaced by target. Redirect made obsolele by my recent cleanup of articles in which I also avoid the redirect (since I am there editing anyway). TableManners 06:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep redirect makes sense, no reason to delete. Redirects are cheap. Mel sa ran 14:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, harmless redirect that was previously used, still useful to avoid red links when you look at old versions of the articles you cleaned up. Kusma (talk) 14:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Guy Novelist → Guy Owen Novelist[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 23:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading redirect, this implies that Novelist was his surname or something. This redirect makes no sense at all. Mel sa ran 15:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see how this was created. The page Guy Owen (novelist) was titled "Guy Owen Novelist" before I moved the page to fulfil the naming conventions. This redirect was created by a bot, who probably thought that Owen was his middle name. Mel sa ran 15:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both redirects per CSD G6 (housekeeping), as cleanup after a pagemove. Neither one is a plausible search term and anyone searching for "Guy Owen Novelist" will see Guy Owen (novelist) in the top results. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

John bambenek → Michael H. Kenyon[edit]

The result of the debate was speedy deleted as pure vandalism by Renata3 (CSD G3). Mel sa ran 18:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Bambenek has nothing to do with the enema bandit--someone is just being silly and/or spiteful by adding the redirect. Grfnkmp 17:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The account that created the redirect made only one edit. This is probably pure vandalism, so I tagged it for speedy. Mel sa ran 17:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.