Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 December 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 2[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 2, 2013.

List of socialist countries as known by someone form the U.S.A.[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. WJBscribe (talk) 15:20, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here we have a POINTy, derogatory title and its misspelled variant. These are very unlikely search terms. --BDD (talk) 23:51, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete These two redirects were briefly the article's title almost 6 and a half years ago before the article was moved back within days. I see no need for either of them--174.93.163.194 (talk) 23:17, 3 December 2013 (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.

John Wayne Stevenson[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. WJBscribe (talk) 15:20, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find a source that confirms his middle name is Wayne. Beerest 2 talk 20:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • As the creator (by moving the page) I'm quite happy for this is to be deleted. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:58, 3 December 2013 (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.

Llantos de Sangre[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 Speedy delete, R2 Jac16888 Talk 18:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

unnecessary redirected created by moving a Spanish language article out of article space The Banner talk 12:41, 2 December 2013 (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.

Piotr Myszkowski (bishop)[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 speedy closed as an incorrect nomination. The subject is an article not a redirect as suggested. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 22:27, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strange redirect created by a page move (???), resulting in loop with "Piotr Myszkowski (bishop)" pointing to "Piotr Myszkowski" (a disambiguation page) that points to "Piotr Myszkowski (bishop)". The Banner talk 12:16, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy close as this is an article, not a redirect. (Piotr Myszkowski (Bishop), with a capital B, is a redirect, but there's nothing strange about that and it should likely be kept as well.) Sideways713 (talk) 17:45, 2 December 2013 (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.

How to write Simple English articles[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. WJBscribe (talk) 11:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Improbable cross-namespace cross-wikiversion soft redirect, fueled by some unknown but clearly non-human process (hence the sudden extreme growth in hits on this page). Fram (talk) 11:29, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive257#Mass creation of very improbable redirects for a more general discussion of redirects created because they receive lots and lots of hits, but which are in all probability not caused by any human searches, but by bots, scripts, ... Fram (talk) 11:32, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I created this soft redirect, among others which are already under discussion at WP:AN. I've invited a member of the WMF analytics team to comment there. Is this second discussion desirable?

The requests for the page appear in bursts:

After looking at the graphs of months with high traffic, I'm not convinced there is a "clearly non-human process" here. Another explanation could be the creation of incorrect links by people unaware of both the existence of the Simple English Wikipedia and of the existence of the Wikipedia name-space, followed by these incorrect links being corrected or falling into obscurity.

If a person follows a link to "How to write Simple English articles" or searches for that phrase, I think the most helpful thing is to tell that person about the target I chose for this soft redirect, simple:Wikipedia:How_to_write_Simple_English_articles. If there's an automated process making some of these requests, the cost of serving up the soft redirect page--even thousands of times--ought to be low, since there is no actual redirection, just a "very short page" providing a link to the article. —rybec 12:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If these hypothetical incorrect links are no longer being used, then the soft redirect no longer serves a purpose. And considering the number of other pagesz with an unlikely amount of hits that have been created as redirects for the same reason, it seems likely that this redirect never served an actual purpose.
Note also that the redirect is How to write Simple English articles, but the target is (articles vs. pages). People looking on enwiki for the correct simple title: 7 in the last 90 days. People looking for the wrong title at the wrong site: 4474. So the soft redirect isn't even at the same title as the Simple English page, and we don't have (and never had, and don't need) a soft redirect from the correct title... Fram (talk) 13:12, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fram earlier noted a "sudden extreme growth in hits". I assumed he was talking about the 3343 requests in November 2013, 237 in October, 736 times in September, and 439 times in August. The two spikes in traffic, the most recent starting around 19 November, indicate to me that whatever is leading to these requests is still happening.
I hadn't noticed that simple:Wikipedia:How_to_write_Simple_English_articles is now a redirect to simple:Wikipedia:How_to_write_Simple_English_pages, and it seems that other people(bots? scripts? trolls?) haven't noticed, either: the so-called "correct" page receives fewer visits than the redirect [1] [2]. I don't object to retargeting to simple:Wikipedia:How_to_write_Simple_English_pages.
The purpose of the soft redirect, like most redirects, is to help readers find the article they appear to be trying to view. The distinction between How_to_write_Simple_English_pages and How_to_write_Simple_English_articles is a minor one. Apart from a desire for "namespace purity", I don't see how this page is harmful. The nominator seems to be saying that high traffic, low traffic, an increase in traffic, or a decrease in traffic are all good reasons not to have this redirect. I get the impression that he just doesn't like it, or doesn't like redirects in general. —rybec 01:22, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I like redirects which aid humans in finding the right Wikipedia article. I seriously doubt that any humans, let alone thousands of them, are using this link though, which leads from Wikipedia main namespace to another namespace on another site; those three together are more than reason enough to think that getting rid of this redirect is good. It is obvious, from the linked AN discussion, that many redirects or redlinks with many page hits are not visited by humans at all. I see no reason to believe that this page is an exception. Graphics like this one, for pages that are not in the news somehow, are completely unrealistic when you think that it represents humans visiting the page. As for "I hadn't noticed that simple:Wikipedia:How_to_write_Simple_English_articles is now a redirect to simple:Wikipedia:How_to_write_Simple_English_pages, and it seems that other people(bots? scripts? trolls?) haven't noticed, either": the move from the old title to the new one was done in June 2009, so not really "now" but more than four years before you created the soft redirect here. Fram (talk) 07:42, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did notice that the move was done in June 2009, but I didn't see the importance of that date to this discussion, so I didn't mention it. I don't see how the date of the move is related to a reason for deletion.
I think that "the right Wikipedia article" about writing Wikipedia articles in Simple English is on the Simple English Wikipedia. It's featured there on the main page "above the fold", albeit with "pages" in its title rather than "articles". I find it entirely plausible that people would search for the page's title, or in this case its old title, on the regular English Wikipedia (some browsers have a search box that searches this Wikipedia). The fact that the page sometimes gets heavy traffic for unknown reasons is not necessary to justify keeping it, and is not a valid reason for deleting it.
I hadn't noticed before creating the soft redirect, but on Wikiquote there's one to the same article. [3] Someone else must have thought it would be useful. —rybec 09:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's Simple Wikiquote (a locked project), not the regular Wikiquote. And that's a redirect from a Wikiquote namespace page to a Wikipedia namespace page (which are equivalent), not a mainspace page to a Wikipedia namespace page. Fram (talk) 10:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete XNR, cross-project-redirect. If this should exist, it should exist in "WP:"-space, not in article-space. Besides, why should this even exist? This isn't Simple English Wikipedia, there is no need for such a page on English Wikipedia, it should only exist on Simple English Wikipedia. We do not restrict the variety of English on English Wikipedia to Simple Eglish, and Simple English is not one of the recognized varieties of English for which English Wikipedia strives to keep articles written in. It is not a WP:ENGVAR and such a redirect misleads people into thinking article should be written in this non-supported variety of English. -- 70.50.148.105 (talk) 11:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per IP. --BDD (talk) 17:43, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It just helps people find the page they're looking for, which exists on the Simple English Wikipedia. It doesn't make any assertions, let alone misleading ones, but merely a link. —rybec 20:22, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it makes you feel any better, it's the "XNR, cross-project-redirect" part of the IP's comment that I especially endorse and see as a strong reason for deletion. --BDD (talk) 20:57, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The search results page for How to write Simple English pages is unhelpful. If How to write Simple English articles is deleted, the search results will be similarly unhelpful. —rybec 05:05, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Fram (talk) 08:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The search box is never going to be Google, nor should it be. --BDD (talk) 17:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If people want to search for information on how to write SEwiki articles, they should actually search on SEwiki not enwiki. On the other hand, if people managed to hit this link through Special:Random and don't know what a 'soft redirect' is, they'll just click the link and garner more views for SEwiki instead (a bit like advertising) and ask themselves why enwiki was written funny. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 09:13, 12 December 2013 (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.

Andrzejki[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 keep and refine target. JohnCD (talk) 15:42, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No common usage in English/ Fails MOS:FOREIGN and WP:FORRED Widefox; talk 10:07, 2 December 2013 (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.

NS:MEDIA[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. --BDD (talk) 17:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. NS: is not a namespace, nor an alias, nor a pseudo-namespace. It is a recently invented construct. So these two are cross-namespace from mainspace into non-content without a basic Redirect reason. That is incorrect usage of mainspace. Such pagenames are not allowed in mainspace, and they are harmful by polluting the mainspace (-concept), and by details mentioned below.
On a supporting level, I can note that these are the only ones by this prefix [4], [5]. They are young (since August 2013) so they have not developed "habitual" usage, and so has not the prefix. As for their targets, they are misleading for choosing a target while there might be alternatives the user expects. Compare NS:MEDIA with WP:MEDIA; the NS:SPECIAL one is pre-decided too, but not to namespace SPECIAL. So, on the detail level they are not helpful either. DePiep (talk) 06:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CSD is about speedy deletions. This is not a speedy deletion proposal. So no speedy rules apply in any way. -DePiep (talk) 15:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as invention by the above "keep" opinion !voter, who created the use by adding the "Media" one as shortcut to Wikipedia:Namespace, which I have now undone. There is no need to "teach" editors the use of an incorrect and unwanted new namespace shortcut, we have plenty of correct ones already. It is not a useful shortcut any more than HP:FILES, AID:IMAGES, USE:PHOTOS or WHAT:SOUNDS would be useful shortcuts. Fram (talk) 15:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Apparently these shortcuts were created in response to a village pump discussion. After a quick read of that discussion, I don't really follow what the problem was, or how these shortcuts are a solution. No rationale is given for why the existing shortcuts WP:MEDIA and WP:SPECIAL are inadequate. Media needs disambiguation, and for this shortcut we have WP:Media namespace. – Wbm1058 (talk) 19:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per Wbm1058 WP:MEDIA and WP:SPECIAL do the job fine and are not in article space. 94.15.76.99 (talk) 23:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no good reason to invent yet another pseudo namespaces for these very specific shortcuts. —Kusma (t·c) 19:48, 4 December 2013 (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.

Infobox film[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. --BDD (talk) 17:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CNR with no incoming links. Not useful at all. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 00:09, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose delete: I find it as a useful redirect, helping quick access to the page. ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 02:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It's useful" is a valid argument for normal redirects. However, this is a CNR (quite recent) and we generally frown upon those. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 03:27, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then I have no other choice than to accept the page for deletion. ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 05:28, 2 December 2013 (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/2013_December_2&oldid=1138578763"