Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 April 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 18[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 18, 2014.

JonTron[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. Given how often these pages have been deleted, I don't know if we really want an article on this guy, but there's definitely consensus that we shouldn't redirect to just one of his projects. Additionally, I believe WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE applies in spirit, if not precisely by the letter. --BDD (talk) 19:12, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This page should not redirect to Game Grumps, as it is only a small part of his life and career and Jon has expressed the same thing here. I say that we just delete the page outright and topic ban any article for a year, or until someone can make a properly sourced article. Redirecting him to Game Grumps permanently with the indef full protection will tie him to Game Grumps when he has nothing to do with it anymore, and is only a small part of his career. TheMesquito (talk) 14:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC) –Copied here from Talk:JonTron. 22:48, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • This page should redirect to Normal Boots instead, since he is both the co-founder and member of the site, and he is most known for his work at Normal Boots with the JonTron show and whatnot. RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 17:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC) –Copied here from Talk:JonTron. 22:48, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • A quarter of his career isn't small by any stretch of the imagination. Game Grumps is what most people know JonTron for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.70.86 (talk) 19:23, 15 April 2014 (UTC) –Copied here from Talk:JonTron. 22:48, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm in favor of removing all redirects since JonTron is a person and not a character. Hirohiigo (talk) 00:58, 16 April 2014 (UTC) –Copied here from Talk:JonTron. 22:48, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have struck out the text that was here prior to the discussion happening on Talk:JonTron being copied over here. I have done this since the last two comments have not added any new information for the discussion, and it was essentially stating that the RFD tag could not be placed on JonTron, which has now been resolved. TheMesquito, I hope you don't mind. Steel1943 (talk) 22:48, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind at all, I'll just remove the striked text TheMesquito (talk) 18:31, 19 April 2014 (UTC) [reply]
I don't think a redirect to Normal Boots will work since the current AFD for that is clearly leaning towards deletion. Based on that it appears the only options are to keep it here or remove entirely.--67.70.140.89 (talk) 21:58, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - In the vein of Jon's very own interests, I'd much rather see the redirect deleted than for it to be redirected to Game Grumps. It just doesn't seem reasonable. RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 08:21, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jon Jafari[edit]

I retargeted this back to Game Grumps for the time being since Normal Boots was deleted. I have no real opinion on this but if JonTron is deleted this one probably should be too.--67.70.140.89 (talk) 00:05, 24 April 2014 (UTC)--67.70.140.89 (talk) 00:05, 24 April 2014 (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.

Manmohan Tiwari[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 April 29#Manmohan Tiwari

360 Pensacola Beach[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) 19:02, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Was listed, but now removed as it has become apparent that it does not meet the list criterea. No alternative target, which is unlikely to change as the installation no longer exists. 49.230.83.117 (talk) 18:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and WP:R#DELETE #10. News articles on the first page of Google results indicate the topic is likely notable. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:56, 19 April 2014 (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.

Commonism[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 no consensus. No clear consensus formed after a month, and doubtful it will become clearer any time soon. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 00:10, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural nomination on behalf of Chricho (talk), who misnominated this at AfD with the following rationale:

Why the page should be deleted“Commonism” is a distinct term not identically with “communism” and frequently used by commons-activists. This is a source explicitly stating that these are distinct concepts. But it should not be my duty to prove that: The word “commonism” is not even mentioned in the article communism, this redirect is an unsourced claim that these two things are identical. Sideways713 (talk) 16:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. This redirect was created in 2005 as a redirect to communism without any explanation by a user who last edited in 2007. In August 2011 UltraMagnus retargetted it to The Commons (which has since been moved to Commons), again without explicit explanation. In June 2012 the target was changed back to Communism by Neelix with the edit summary "The word "commonism" does not appear on Commons, but "commonism" is a common alternate spelling of communism.". If that claim of being an alternate spelling is correct (I haven't looked) then the redirect is not inappropriate, as would be the case if it were a plausible typo/thinko for Communism (which is what I expected it to be). If Commonism is a topic about which we should have an article, then a deletion per WP:REDLINK is probably the way to go, a disambiguation page or hatnote is another possibility. Thryduulf (talk) 00:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Thanks for the breakdown, Thryduulf! If you type "Commonism" into the Google search bar, it asks, "Did you mean: Communism", so "commonism" is clearly a common misspelling of "communism". Unless someone finds enough significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources to demonstrate the notability of a concept that is actually called "commonism" and creates an article about it, the redirect should remain as it is. Neelix (talk) 03:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Plausible typo and surely "commune" and "common" are cognates anyway? Si Trew (talk) 07:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. urbandictionary.com defines it (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Commonism here) as J. Edgar Hoover's pronunciation of "communism", although it is easy for a stenographer just to miss when typing up shorthand notes. I don't think that is RS, but does tend to indicate that it means the same thing. There are a couple of references such as [this one at turbulence.org.uk] and [this one at blog.p2pfoundation.net] to a lecture/paper by Nick Dyer-Witheford (who he?) but that seems rather a neologism and neither is WP:RS in my opinion. (He wrote Cyber-Mar: Cycles and Circuits of Struggle in High Technology Captialism. University of Illinois. 1999. ISBN 978-0252067952. and I would guess is an academic there for which the the others quoted are from his pupils, that is just a guess). According to those papers, Witheford defines commonism as different from communism (but then what is communism?) and in one in the lead attributes to him "a number of articles [in which he] has sought to promote the concept of commonism as a way to avoid the bad history of authoritarian state communism, while, at the same time, providing an antidote to centralised planning and the restrictions of private property through new forms of collective ownership. However, we don't have an article, if we did it would seem to be sourced to one person, and this obviously is not widespread. THere is a paper here by Witheford himself but it seems to be a neologism on his part and has not become widespread. It should stay where it is. Si Trew (talk) 10:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure there's a way to check this now, but if Commonism were red, would a reader searching for this term get a suggestion from Wikipedia (ex.)? If so, I would support deletion. I understand the nominator's concern that there is a concept called "commonism" that differs from communism, so I'm torn on whether we should treat this as a typo or delete to encourage creation and/or prevent confusion. Certainly it's one letter off, and U and O are very close on a QWERTY keyboard, so it's a plausible typo. But keeping this also seems to conflate two separate ideologies. --BDD (talk) 19:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think they are two separate ideologies. I think it is just a neologism from one professor at one univeristy who has made a nice living out of it but obvously hasn't caught on, and the redirect should stand. We might as well redirect it to Luddite or Socialism or Common land or Commons or House of Commons or anywhere else. As for the typo, if you touch type you shouldn't miss like that because you rest your index fingers on the F and the J (which have indents for the purpose of you finding them without looking) and use different fingers for U (index finger) and O (ring finger) but on small devices that people use these days, it is very easy to miss. Si Trew (talk) 08:40, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually here's a test. I don't use that awful predictive typing thing on mobile phones, I just make loads of my own mistakes instead, but if you type "commonism" into your mobile phone what do you get? Si Trew (talk) 08:45, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have an appropriate device to test that on, but remember that is not only touch typists but two-finger typists, people with non-qwerty keyboards and non-native speakers as well. I guess it's also a plausible mistake for someone using speech input. Thryduulf (talk) 13:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't suggesting that it was implausible: quite the opposite. I was saying if you touch-type on a QWERTY (or AZERTY) it would be hard t miss like that: BDD said the U and the O are are close together, but they are not adjacent and one shouldn't miss in that manner if touch-typing properly. (Incidentally it's hard to touch-type properly for Wikipedia editing because of all the special symbols one has to insert.)
But all the various other input methods make it a plausible typo. Certainly yes with speech input it would seem to be very easy to miss, either that the speaker's dialect makes it "wrong" or the limitations of speech detection software. If either Hoover or his stenographer managed to say or record "communism" as "commonism" then the current redirect seems more likely than an idea by a professor that does not seem to have been widely repeated. Si Trew (talk) 08:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this is a term used in academic books and journal articles to describe various models that have some of the benefits of Communism. user:BDD, yes search DYM will suggest Communism. See fr.wp search results. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:15, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you know of academic books and journal articles that use the term "commonism" to describe variations on communism, why not add them to the Communism article? I see no benefit to making users who have misspelled the word go through the additional step of DYM before arriving at the intended article. Neelix (talk) 15:43, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It would be WP:UNDUE to mention Commonism in the Communism article. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Let the software help those who made a typo. As a redirect, it appears that we're saying "commonism" is a form of communism. I'm not convinced that that's accurate. --BDD (talk) 16:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. From what I read in the professor's paper, commonism is a form of communism (or socialism) and right in the abstract it says so – but the intent is to remove the more authoritarian aspects. That being said, Marx would not have recognised the "communism" of the USSR as communism at all but as totalitarianism, probably. This is just down to how people use words. What about "democracy". As Orwell points out, every state calls itself democratic without defining what it means by democracy, because the word is seen to be inherently "good". As far as I see it, I am just repeating what I said above, this particular model is by one professor at one university and has not been widely reported: he and his paper are not WP:N. A typo for communism, in my opinion, would be far more common. But as I think Thryduulf said above, how can we find out while this redirect is here? And particularly, while this discussion is here, since the redirect of course then no longer takes them automatically to the article. That's the bind. Si Trew (talk) 08:37, 19 April 2014 (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.

World's Largest Artificial Pysanka[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 May 15#World's Largest Artificial Pysanka

World's largest port[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 no consensus. Involved close given the backlog, length of listing, and staleness of discussion. To quote WP:INVOLVED, I think "any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion." Contact me with concerns. --BDD (talk) 17:49, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am not simply trucking through proposing deletion of every article, list etc that has "world's largest" in it. That is valuable for a search. But this is misleading, because the largest port and the busiest port are different things. Si Trew (talk) 10:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - simply not the same thing. No reason one should redirect to the other. Stalwart111 12:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This would make a good redirect to List of ports by area, but as we don't yet have that article or anything similar that doesn't help us now. I've revamped and expanded Lists of ports, but there is nothing there or in category:Lists of ports that would make a good target either unfortunately. Thryduulf (talk) 16:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a smaller well managed pory could esaily be busyier that a larger point so therfore the redirect is misleading.--70.49.72.34 (talk) 03:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not the same thing. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 23:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Viable search term, WP itself should sort out a good target. It is an encyclopedic search term right? Though it may not have a precise hit target, any reader actually searching, typing and finding this would be helped out. Target page may be improved, but deletion is not needed. Just this week the BBC reported that "Heathrow is not the biggest airport by passenger count any more". I mean to illustrate, it is common in RL. (btw, DXB now is, I heard. How would you find that in WP). -DePiep (talk) 07:16, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the term 'largest' is equivalent to 'busiest' within the industry, and the overlap between ports that largest by activity and largest by 'land' area size is quite close. Also, land area size is not really comparable or relevant, as the way ships are managed through the waters in and outside the port are equally important, and technology is constantly being employed to reduce the amount of space wasted to achieve the same result. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:48, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per John Vandenberg. I can imagine a fair amount of readers searching for this are looking for the busiest port. If there were a convenient way to fit in their physical size at the target article, that would be even better. --BDD (talk) 16:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per John Vandenberg and BDD. I am the nominator and I leave the original nomination but strike out my delete; but I know this is redirects for discussion which is why I brought it here. I'm convinced by the arguments above (including Thryduulf's that said delete) that people might search for this, and in the absense of a list of ports by area or some such, this is the best target. Si Trew (talk) 11:12, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete world's largest port does not mean busiest. It is more likely to mean the number of docking locations, area of the port (landside or seaside or both); further value of goods transshipped versus volume of goods transshipped versus mass of goods transshipped are all different matters. And the largest size of ship that can be handled, the volume of water in the port control zone, the tonnage of shipping processed, can also meant. So redirecting to busiest is not a very good use. -- 65.94.77.36 (talk) 22:38, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then where should it go? I started out saying "largest" and "busiest" are not the same thing: but ultimately, we are not here to determine what is the largest port (in some dimension or combination of them), but whether this redirect is a likely search term, and if so, what is the person searching likely to be looking for?. Necessarily that involves some second-guessing, because while a redirect targets somewhere it is hard to get stats on people landing at the target and then immediately clicking away if it was not what they were looking for. Which is why I changed my opinion. Si Trew (talk) 00:23, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although they're not the same thing, someone searching for "world's largest port" (which we don't have an article on) would be well served by our article on "world's busiest port." -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:41, 22 April 2014 (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.

Conciseness razor[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. G7 cuts like a knife—but it feels so right. --BDD (talk) 16:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unacceptable mainspace -> projectspace redirect. There is no such real world term, let alone an expectation to find such a thing in mainspace. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. This is unacceptable. — Scott • talk 14:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete! I created it by mistake, and did not realize it until now. --B2C 15:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This went too quickly for me to comment. Suggest retarget to Occam's Razor. Si Trew (talk) 23:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's a problem with the lede there as well in that the title says "Occam's Razor", Occam's Razor is actually a redirect to Ockham's Razor (this is because William of Ockham spelt it both ways as was common at the time) but the title of the article and the lede don't match. I don't know what to do about that. There is of course Occam (programming language) and so on, so I would tend to prefer the OCC spelling but I presume this has been argued about long and hard before: but the lede and title should match. I daredn't touch it. Si Trew (talk) 23:45, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any evidence of anyone anywhere ever looking for Occam's razor with the phrase "conciseness razor"? As the inventor of the latter, intended for internal WP use only, I would be very surprised if there is such evidence. --B2C 22:09, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone's entitled to make a mistake and it is rare that an editor will admit to it. Delete per creator Born2cycle. I don't understand why an article in mainspace would be created for "internal Wikipedia use only", though. Si Trew (talk) 23:03, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the closed discussion, SimonTrew (talk · contribs)? I explained it there. (speaking of mistakes!). --B2C 01:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Born2cycle: I did, yes. I just actually disagree that it is useless: I think it could be a useful redirect. I meant it as a compliment, by the way, that an editor will state openly "I made a mistake": but I am not sure thaty you did! Si Trew (talk) 01:22, 22 April 2014 (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.

Lista di laghi e dighe della Svizzera[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. While Wikipedia:Administrators is clear that admins should never use the tools "to gain advantage in a dispute," I trust there will be no objections to my using them to disadvantage myself. I can see when consensus is against my position. --BDD (talk) 18:58, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unnescceary, per WP:NOTDIC. TheChampionMan1234 05:48, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no need for Italian in this instance per WP:FORRED. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:31, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Italian is one of the official languages of Switzerland, so this is not as implausible as some we see here. Thryduulf (talk) 12:33, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Those needing this topic in Italian can find it, unsurprisingly, at it:Lista di laghi e dighe della Svizzera. — Scott • talk 15:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, actually. I doubt it's going to be very useful, but there is a connection between the language and the topic. I wouldn't really want to see German, French, Italian, and Romansh redirects to every Swiss topic, but that's an example of what I call RfD zen: this redirect shouldn't've been created, but now that it has been, it shouldn't be deleted either. --BDD (talk) 17:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We are not the Italian-lanugage Wikipedia. It is already at Italian Wikipedia, it:Lista_di_laghi_e_dighe_della_Svizzera there. The problem I see with BDD's "RfD zen" is that if you're not careful you set a precedent and soon we have it in two hundred and fifty different languages. I am an inclusionist by nature but there are lines to be drawn, and for me, foreign language terms where articles exist in the appropriate encyclopaedia is over the line: someone searching externally will then come up at an English-language article for an Italian term, what help is that to them? Si Trew (talk) 22:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I am generally in favor of redirects in different languages when that language is related to the topic, but not when it translates several common words of the English language like "list" or "lakes." -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:44, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:UE, this is not the Italian Wikipedia, our article is not written in Italian. The topic has no native Italian name, since it is a purely descriptive name come up with by Wikipedia editors, and not a prescriptive name coming out of Italian. -- 65.94.77.36 (talk) 05:51, 22 April 2014 (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.

Nowiki[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. The potential for confusion is noted, but also addressed by the hatnote. With similar redirects such as Enwiki and Dewiki, there isn't a compelling rationale for deletion. (n.b. While there's a "keep per" me vote here, I did not express an opinion as to whether the redirect should be kept or not.) --BDD (talk) 18:54, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking for help on the nowiki syntax, not no.wp. Plus, there is some vandalism right now on the page [1], which I will clean up in a sec. TheChampionMan1234 05:32, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep "nowiki" is the code for the Norwegian Wikipedia in the same way that "enwiki" is the code for the English Wikipedia, and the mainspace article about the Norwegian Wikipedia is better than a cross-namespace redirect to information about the nowiki syntax, especially since there is a hatnote at the article pointing people there already. The vandalism is not relevant to which is the best target. Thryduulf (talk) 12:36, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whose code? At least at WP:PNT, unless I have been mistaken all these years, people just say EN:WP or IT:WP or NO:WP and so on. Since there are two Norwegian Wikipedias, for different variants of the language, that is just misleading (to an English audience) anyway. Si Trew (talk) 08:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If it is just two topics then that can go per hatnotes with WP:TWODABS. The thing is, to encourage readers to turn into editors. This, I feel, discourages that, QED nom. Si Trew (talk) 23:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be very surprised if there were an article that discussed the nowiki function. However, we could use a {{selfref}}, similar to that at AGF, if the redirect is kept: "Nowiki" redirects here. On the English Wikipedia, nowiki is an element of Help:Wiki markup. --BDD (talk) 23:22, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I think that might serve a better purpose, especially since Parsing currently fails MOS:DABMENTION for the purpose behind my disambiguation page idea. On a related note, I'm changing my vote to "keep". Steel1943 (talk) 23:33, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @SimonTrew: To use a hatnote means that a primary topic has been established for the term "Nowiki", and I don't see either one of these terms proven to be the primary topic for the term. So thus, the reason I say "Convert to a DAB". Steel1943 (talk) 23:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "no" is an English word, and "nowiki" is a tag on MediaWiki, so this is highly confusing. -- 65.94.77.36 (talk) 05:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There is actually Wikipedia:NOWIKI but I know some other editors are against cross-namespace redirects like that. The current hatnote at the target redirects through that, though at least to me it would seem more obvious if. assuming this is kept, it is used at the target explicitly in the hatnote, rather than "Help:Wiki markup" which while correct seems less helpful. Si Trew (talk) 08:16, 19 April 2014 (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.

Keleti pályaudvar[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 wrong forum - see WP:RM if you want to move the location of an article. From personal experience I know that discussions about the name of foreign railway stations are sometimes controversial, so it's best to use the correct procedure for them. Thryduulf (talk) 12:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect should be reversed. It simply means "Eastern terminus". We do not have "Gare du Nord" redirecting to Northern station or Station of the North, we have it at what it calls itself. Si Trew (talk) 04:53, 18 April 2014 (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.

Lista de codigos telefonicos[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) 18:50, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTDIC TheChampionMan1234 04:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:FORRED and this Portuguese title should point at List of telephone codes, if anywhere, not a Mexico list. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this is also Spanish, isn't it? It would be "Lista de códigos telefónicos." That's still not a good reason to keep, though. There are many Spanish-speaking countries. --BDD (talk) 16:37, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's cognate with Spanish, yes, but you are out: in Spanish it is es:Anexo:Prefijos telefónicos mundiales here, through the Interwiki links. The English, through the Interwiki, is at List of country calling codes. But we might as well redirect it to Yellow Pages or Telephone directory, the first of which if memory serves me right (it seldom does these days) was published in New York at about the turn of the last century and listed 112 numbers. It is already in Portuguese Wikipedia pt:Lista_de_códigos_telefónicos here Si Trew (talk) 23:32, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at this again, there are a few other oddities here. First, the title of the target "Area codes in Mexico by code" is a bit odd (why not just have "Area codes in Mexico", which redirects there, and is the simpler title?. Make it a list article with a table? but that is probably outside of the remit of RfD but I am happy to do it if consensus is reached for that.) Second, the Interwiki links are to country codes – at least the Spanish and English, is the international dialing codes (+44 for the UK and so on) not the interior codes (what in UK English are called STD codes or elsewhere probably area codes). So the Interwiki links are a bit out of whack, but I am not sure what we can do about that. It should probably be deleted, per John Vandenberg: even a Portuguese speaker stumbling into English Wikipedia will not expect to find a list of Mexican area codes. Si Trew (talk) 12:29, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the Spanish title is descriptive not prescriptive, so many alternate formulations are available. This is not the definitive name for the topic in Spanish, as there is no such name. WP:NOT a translation dictionary or a phrase look up book. -- 04:57, 23 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.250.192 (talk • contribs)
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.

Template:User TFBH2[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) 18:48, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This template was never a userbox template which using the 'User x' naming convention required by {{Babel}}. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC) Delete per John Vandenberg. Si Trew (talk) 21:49, 20 April 2014 (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.

Murica[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. --BDD (talk) 18:46, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is not mentioned on the page. Also, Wikipedia is not the Urban Dictionary. I recommend either delete, or retarget to Murcia and tag it with {{R from misspelling}}. Steel1943 (talk) 03:24, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I believe another stalwart at RfD used this term the other day about himself, knowing that I was British, but I had never heard the term. I think the term he used was Murica, Florida and I assumed it was an actual placename and tried to look it up but couldn't find it – I knew the editor was joking but didn't quite get the joke, sorry, because I didn't realise the meaning. So this is genuinely misleading. The editor was in entirely good faith and probably assumed I knew the term, but perhaps it is not WP:WORLDWIDE, I have never heard it. Having kinda spoken it in my head I can see how it is formed now, but when written if one has not seen it before one doesn't think automatically that "murica" is a slurring way of saying "America". It's not mentioned at the target. Si Trew (talk) 11:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this is used frequently enough to (1) be a plausible search term (to the point where somebody searching for this is more likely looking for the neologism than they are to be mispelling the name of the Spanish city; see the Know Your Meme page for examples) and (2) meet Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion. As such I think a soft redirect to Wiktionary would be the best option, but I'm not going to put that in bold because at present there's no such Wiktionary entry for it to point to. The term is also mentioned at Apheresis (linguistics), which might be a plausible target; and there's also apparently a biological use of the term, which comes up in this 1979 book about Globigerinida and might merit a mention somewhere. Finally, I'd like to note that 'Murica also exists and points to the same target (where it isn't mentioned), but is much less likely to be entered as a typo of Murcia. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 02:37, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nice find with 'Murica. Who is going to type that? Urban Dictionary has it here but (I am not sure but assume) that is not RS. More of the problem is it's not mentioned at the target, and I've looked but can't really find an RS for it, it's all Twitter and Facebook and stuff like that. It's not a meme, it's a word: but perhaps a neologism? That is not in itself a problem, all words have to be invented at some point, but do we have evidence that this one is more than a passing fad? Si Trew (talk) 05:39, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...And Merica is an article about a genus of sea snails. Arms & Hearts, I'm not opposed to this reasoning, but if this situation is going to be fixed, it will involve a lot more than just resolving the redirect I have nominated here. Steel1943 (talk) 18:24, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update (@SimonTrew and Steel1943:) I've just realised wikt:'Murica does exist after all and have soft-redirected 'Murica there and changed my !vote here accordingly. Hopefully that clears things up a bit. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 00:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect per above. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:53, 22 April 2014 (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.

!@[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, with a certain amount of caution. I do find consensus to delete here, and normally I'd salt a title after its sixth (!) deletion. However, I don't want to discount that there could be a legitimate use for this as a redirect to a different title. It's not currently used at At sign#Computer programming, and Steel1943's suggestion may have some merit too. I'll leave it to interested editors to recreate it if desired, at which point we can reassess at RfD if someone else wants. Especially if this continues to attract vandalism or test edits, though, salting may be the best outcome. Apologies for the convolution. --BDD (talk) 18:44, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No obvious reason for this to exist. — This, that and the other (talk) 01:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - per nominator, I don't see why anyone would type that --TheChampionMan1234 04:54, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep or retarget these are the first two symbols obtained by pressing the number keys while holding shift when using a US QWERTY keyboard, and as such it has a history of test edits, which I suspect was the reason for the redirect in the first place (it has existed harmlessly since 2010). It gets a lot of traffic (78 hits last month for example), probably also from the curious so there is definite benefit in keeping something at this title. I can't find scope for an article, so we should redirect it somewhere, the current target is not bad but perhaps QWERTY, Punctuation or Template:Punctuation marks would be better? Thryduulf (talk) 12:54, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, the section is actually called "#Computer programming". Thryduulf (talk) 15:49, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My cock-up entirely. Si Trew (talk) 22:59, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This is a great example of why getting hits isn't always a reason to keep a redirect. — Scott • talk 15:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why? The redirect is preventing unwanted test edits, and while we could salt the title a redirect is very significantly preferable. Thryduulf (talk) 23:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the current target is erroneous and arbitrary. So are the other targets suggested, unless this two character combination can be shown to be used for some purpose. Anti-vandalism isnt a good reason to create junk redirects. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:37, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a bit vague to be useful as a redirect to any pages.--Lenticel (talk) 00:59, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to 12. I was thinking about this for a while to try to figure out what possible keys could be pressed to get this combination of characters, and on the QWERTY keyboard, this key combination would equate to "12" if the "shift" key is held at the same time. (In fact, looking at the comments above, it seems as though Thryduulf said something similar.) Steel1943 (talk) 08:05, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to section to At sign#In computer languages, where this string would be well-formed syntax in many languages (I originally suggested Forth (programming language) but am changing my own because no-one has replied/is awake yet so it is not helpful for me to strike my own out). "12" is only a typo in the way Steel1943 suggests if you have a US keyboard layout (and perhaps others): on my UK one (which is QWERTY) you would get !" and on my Hungarian one (which is QWERTZ) you would get '". The "QWERTiness" is irrelevant since these are the number keys. Si Trew (talk) 08:25, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. When you come to think of it, the history of the at sign is quite interesting. It was used forever in accountancy until computers were invented and tills became automated by National Cash Register and all that, when it became almost redundant. Then someone kinda repurposed it to be used as the separator in email addresses and it got a new lease of life. I remember when there were battles whether email addresses should be big-endian or little-endian (both terms of course from Gulliver's travels and how to write them. The British held out for a while that it should be called e-post instead of email and that in itself is curious since the Americans have the US Postal Service to deliver the mail while the British have the Royal Mail to deliver the post. "NEITHER RAIN NOR HAIL NOR SNOW NOR GLOOM OF NIGHT CAN STAY THE COURIER FROM THE SPEEDY EXECUTION OF HIS APPOINTED ROUNDS". Well, what is it then? Si Trew (talk) 09:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Probably. I did check the section but I got distracted and put in the wrong retarget. There's no specific mention of that symbol in that section either, but it would be valid in various computer languages. Si Trew (talk) 22:57, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Retarget to 12 as a {{R from typo}} for shift errors, preferably delete. SiTrew might want to consider creating a set-index listing all the programming languages this is valid code for, if such content covering the actual usage of syntax "!@" (and not just "@", as it doesn't indicate usage of the modified by "!" version) exists on wikipedia, if not, it should be WP:REDLINKed. -- 70.24.250.192 (talk) 04:59, 23 April 2014 (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/2014_April_18&oldid=1138579371"