Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 August 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 24[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 24, 2012

Supreme Leader[edit]

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 Retarget to Supreme leader. Any other target would be unusual as the titles which differ only in capitalization usually point to the same target. Ruslik_Zero 17:03, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Has stood as a redirect to Supreme Leader of Iran since 2003 (apart from when it was briefly turned into a dab page). Recently the target has changed to redirect to Supreme Leader (disambiguation). Also in the mix is the page Supreme leader, created in 2011. I think discussion is need about whether there is a primary topic for the name "Supreme Leader". France3470 (talk) 11:08, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Isn't the Supreme Leader of North Korea more relevant currently? -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 11:56, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, as Kim Jong-un is not called Supreme Leader, either in or outside North Korea. To my knowledge, Iran is the only country using this term. Ego White Tray (talk) 12:32, 24 August 2012 (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.

Justin Bieber[edit]

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. Going over the discussion here as well as the others currently listed, there is still consensus to not have these redirects, also referred to as WP:RFD#DELETE criterion 8, unless there are compelling reasons related to the subject of the article itself, and not just where this subject it is of interest to speakers of other languages.Tikiwont (talk) 19:24, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unrelated language to Justin Bieber, this is not English, French, Inukitut (Canadian languages), German (ancestral languages), or Spanish (Selena Gomez). WP:NOTDIC, Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary. His songs are in English, not these two languages, and he speaks English and French, not these two languages. His primary market is United States and Canada. -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 04:56, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - aids user navigation, deletion presents no benefit. Why make the encyclopaedia worse to no benefit? WilyD 05:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, we should have every language known have redirects to every topic? -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 06:08, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Where they're useful and unharmful, yes. WilyD 06:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • If he knows Russian or other languages written in Cyrillic, keep them all. --Daniyar Mukharbatanov (talk) 07:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • There is the outcome from a similar RFD last year which was to delete this kind of redirect, where the language in question was not closely related to the topic at hand. -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 09:05, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Just because we've made stupid decisions in the past, doesn't mean we're obliged to keep making stupid decisions. WilyD 09:34, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • The result was endorsed at DRV a couple of months ago though. -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 12:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • The point of DRV isn't to rehash a discussion, but to ensure the closure was a correct reflection of the discussion. Given that the original discussion fucked up, the DRV can still endorse it without us having to compound that fuckup with a second bad decision. WilyD 16:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • If the XfD discussion was messed up, then the DRV decision would be to overturn or to relist, not endorse. -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 03:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                    • No, that's not how DRV works. DRV only overturns if the original discussion came to a different conclusion than the admin closed it as, or relists if the closure was premature. WilyD 08:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                      • I've seen DRV relist/reopen when there were process problems. Your implication is that the original discussion is process-confused, so viable for relisting. -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 23:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note also that the point about Canadian languages doesn't fly; Canada has almost a hundred thousand first language Russian speakers, about four times the number of first language Inukitut speakers (indeed, equal to almost the total number of First Nation language speakers combined). The United States adds another nine hundred thousand first language Russian speakers (2006). Even if Bieber was only popular in Canada and America (as a current European, to this I say "HA!"), that's still a million people who're likely to find a Russian redirect useful. WilyD 07:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-English redirects are harmful, and these redirects are not a convincing exception. See WP:RFD#DELETE #8. BigNate37(T) 09:23, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • This essay utter fails to make the case that non-English redirects are harmful. Linking an essay that doesn't support your point at all is not a convincing argument. WilyD 09:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I just wrote it, specifically for this instance. You are welcome to rebut the points I made, but I find your assertion that it doesn't support my point somewhat shocking. Have you read the essay through? One specific example of the problems this type of redirect creates is thus: if someone changes the target to an unrelated article, will RC patrollers understand this is a bad thing? Most of them won't be able to recognize what the term is. This is explained in the essay, see "error detection relies on numbers." There's no compelling reason to have a redirect to this particular subject from that particular alphabet, and non-English redirect bloat is a bad thing. BigNate37(T) 09:43, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's difficult to rebut points that don't exist. Apart from a vague sentiment of "I don't think we should be bothered to consider the needs of readers for whom English is a second language", and perhaps some "I don't like it", there's no argument there. WilyD 09:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • The key point is that this is the English Wikipedia and thus we cater for English speakers almost exclusively - speakers of other languages have other language encyclopaedias that do similarly. If a second-language English speaker wants to read about a topic in English but cannot remember the English name for it they can search their first-language Wikipedia and follow the interwiki link. Thryduulf (talk) 10:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • The group English speakers contains an enormous number of second language speakers (indeed, the great majority of English speakers speak it as a second language). Catering to them in a way that costs us nothing at all, and makes the encyclopaedia more useful to them, is the nice thing to do. Making the encyclopaedia more useable is always a good thing, and deliberately making it harder to use for no benefit is always a dick-ish thing to do. Especially in a case like a proper name, where even a reasonably proficient second language speaker is likely to have difficulties. It not only drives away readers, but plausibly editors who'd improve the encyclopaedia to the benefit of native English speakers (for those who have no concern for the welfare of non-native speakers). Functionally, people not terribly familiar with Wikipedia are often unlikely to know that a version exists in their native language, something they could discover through interwiki links if they were given the chance by redirects like this one. WilyD 10:38, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • It is not dickish at all, as while redirects like this do little harm to the English Wikipedia (other than provide links that are helpful to almost nobody and only marginally helpful to the rest) they do actively harm foreign language editions of Wikipedia. If somebody knows only the name of a person in a different language they can use their favourite search engine to find information about that person and/or their name in English and then look to Wikipedia for that. Also, they have great potential for harm - few people on en.wp can read Armenian so if I was to create a redirect from "Հոլոքոսթը հերքողները" to Abdullah Gül few would recognise this as a VLP violation (it's Google's translation of the phrase "holocaust denier", for reference I have no idea whether he is one or not). Further, redirects like this clutter search results and can cause problems down the line with accidental links from misspellings, etc. remember there are ~6-7 thousand languages in the world and over four million Wikipedia articles so this would mean well over 24 billion redirects to cater for second language speakers. Thryduulf (talk) 15:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • It's entirely dickish, taking deliberate action to make someone else's use of the encyclopaedia harder without any benefit to the rest of us. Other language editions are likely to benefit from English Wikipedia providing them publicity b y allowing readers to navigate to their native language, rather than shutting them out. Redirects won't be harmful unless the other language edition is essentially unused (in which case the former benefit is much stronger), or the redirect is immensely popular (in which case it's providing a substantial service, and should be retained). The hypothetical argument that other non-english redirects could be harmful isn't compelling, because that argument doesn't apply to these redirects. BLP also tells us that biographies might be harmful, but we only delete those that're actually harmful. Deleting these redirects serves no purpose other than to make the encyclopaedia less usable for second-language English speakers, which is textbookedly dickish on our part. WilyD 16:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  Two points. One; why, exactly, would anyone come to the English Wikipedia and do a search for a Canadian singer (unfortunately) popular in the United States using Mongolian and Kazakh? Secondly, there is a very real maintenance problem here; anyone quickly scanning a list of redirects will immediately see something like "Will is a homo" → Will Smith, but as very few people editing en.wiki will see (for instance) what クソボケ → Will Smith (クソボケ roughly translates to shit-for-brains). I'm the one who started the RfD quoted above that resulted in the deletion of completely useless Selena Gomez redirects, and I have no problem with relevant foreign language redirects, but I fail to see any connection between Justin Bieber and the Kazakh and Mongolian languages. In case it's not already self evident, delete. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict)Delete. Apparently these redirects are in Kazakh and Mongolian respectively, languages to which Justin Bieber apparently has no connection. Speakers of those languages looking for information in English will know his English name, and those looking for information in those languages will be better served by the Kazakh Wikipedia article or the Mongolian Wikipedia article. Thryduulf (talk) 09:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, titles in non-arabic characters should not be in the English Wikipedia, they should be in their respective languages' Wikipedia and link to the article in question through alternate language links, which appears to have already taken place in these two cases. PKT(alk) 13:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the only real keep rationale available is WP:NOHARM. Likewise, I am not convinced of the "helping ESL readers" angle - even someone for whom English is their second (or later) language will understand that an English website will use English spelling. Resolute 14:46, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There is very, very little use for these orphaned redirects aside from driving those using computers not set up for Latin based alphabets to English Wikipedia pages. And using them in an article would be very pointy since would be introducing a non-English section or never used in English phonetic translation into an article. And if there has been a change in consensus - and I'm not seeing it here - then getting that change before making these type of redirects would be the reasonable way to go. - J Greb (talk) 21:51, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- Until the creation of the corresponding language articles, which would then find-result the Justin Bieber article; until then, [1] does nicely, but is currently the only way on en.Wikipedia they'd find a result. The page gets how many views? They're statistically impossible to all be English-primary speakers. Dru of Id (talk) 04:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why would we write a Russian/Ukrainian/etc-language article on English Wikipedia? -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 05:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The logic would be that the particular Wikipedias have yet to have an article on the topic created, so the best way for users of those to find the topic is to have the non-English redirects hosted on the English Wikipedia. It is worth noting that the Ukranian - Джастін Бібер - and Russian - Бибер, Джастин - Wikipedia's have articles in place. And the latter has a redirect for "Джастин Бибер". That makes the argument moot at the very least. Willfully blind considering those articles have been there for around 3 years. - J Greb (talk) 06:36, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • (Addendum) And since Thryduulf points out one would be Mongolian - Жастин Бибер since January 2011. And Kazakh Джастин Бибер from August 2011. - J Greb (talk) 06:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Shouldn't we have a different project for that? Say http://mul.wikipedia.org which is solely built of redirects to articles in other language wikipedias? (or lists of other wikipedias with articles on the topic) -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 07:18, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Dunno... We already have the interwiki links. And search engines should pick up the properly titled articles on the other language Wikipedias. All that leaves is someone searching the English Wikipedia using a comp set up for non-Latin characters. And the mind boggles at that one. - J Greb (talk) 07:46, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:RFD#DELETE "redirects from a foreign language title to a page whose subject is unrelated to that language".Moxy (talk) 21:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC
  • Keep Per WilyD. No policy that non-English redirects are harmful. 112.207.139.172 (talk) 01:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:RFD#DELETE. Not a valid English search. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 19:45, 7 September 2012 (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.

Men In Black[edit]

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. Going over the discussion here as well as the others currently listed, there is still consensus to not have these redirects, also referred to as WP:RFD#DELETE criterion 8, unless there are compelling reasons related to the subject of the article itself, and not just where this subject it is of interest to speakers of other languages.Tikiwont (talk) 19:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete redirects from languages that are not closely associated with the target. MIB is a US Hollywood film with an English-language script and dialogue with English-language directors. WP:NOTDIC Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary either. 76.65.128.252 (talk) 04:36, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - aids user navigation, deletion presents no value. Why lower the usefulness of the encyclopaedia to no benefit? WilyD 05:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-English redirects are harmful, and these redirects are not a convincing exception. See WP:RFD#DELETE #8. BigNate37(T) 09:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • This user essay provides no rationale for deletion. WilyD 09:34, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per my comments on the Justin Bieber redirects above - users searching for the Kazakh language title of an American film are better served by the Kazakh language Wikipedia; having such redirects here dilutes the prominence of those articles in search engine results. The titles are not helpful to English speaking readers and the articles are not helpful to Kazakh, etc. speakers. Thryduulf (talk) 09:44, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There is very, very little use for these orphaned redirects aside from driving those using computers not set up for Latin based alphabets to English Wikipedia pages. And using them in an article would be very pointy since would be introducing a non-English section or never used in English phonetic translation into an article. And if there has been a change in consensus - and I'm not seeing it here - then getting that change before making these type of redirects would be the reasonable way to go. - J Greb (talk) 21:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep redirects to Men in Black 3 only. 112.210.115.12 (talk) 10:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why? What is the difference between the redirects that makes "Люди в чёрном 3" useful but "Люди в чёрном 2" not? Thryduulf (talk) 12:28, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Men in Black and Men in Black 2 do not have Film posters in Russian. Men in Black 3 does have Russian and Kazakh equivalents of its film poster. 112.210.115.12 (talk) 20:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • This isn't the Russian Wikipedia, so still not getting your point, since the movie was filmed in English. -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 22:54, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:RFD#DELETE.Moxy (talk) 20:53, 12 September 2012 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2012_August_24&oldid=1138578096"