Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 April 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 22[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 22, 2014.

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. --BDD (talk) 16:22, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTGUIDE, plus this isn't the Simple English Wikipedia TheChampionMan1234 23:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:NOTHOWTO/WP:NOTFAQ -- 70.24.250.192 (talk) 04:54, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The current target doesn't contain any information on the topic, nor do any other Wikipedia pages (in any namespace) that I know of. Someone searching for this would presumably be looking for simple:Wikipedia:How to write Simple English pages, but retargeting to that would be inadvisable per WP:R#DELETE #6, which only permits redirects to the Wikipedia namespace if they've been around a while, which would seem to preclude creating any new ones (this would also preclude retargeting to Wikipedia:Simple English Wikipedia). We could alternatively retarget this to the disambiguation page at Simple English, which lists entries that no doubt would be useful for someone hoping to learn how to write Simple English articles, but I think "Simple English articles" differs from "articles in simple English" in that it most likely refers to the Simple English Wikipedia. With that in mind, a redirect to a tangentially-related article on this Wikipedia would fall foul of WP:ASTONISH. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 08:42, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not mentioned at target. It could go to Basic English, but I don't think that would be useful. While the Simple English Wikipedia is a laudable project, we should all try to write in the simplest English anyway. Si Trew (talk) 10:14, 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.

Flight 60528[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) 16:23, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect created by page move. Does not seem alikely search term, since this is the tail number of the aircraft not a flight number. TheLongTone (talk) 18:59, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Si Trew (talk) 21:15, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom "60528" is not a flight number, it is a plane ID number. -- 70.24.250.192 (talk) 21:40, 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.

Cielodrive.com[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. Involved closed given the backlog and unanimous consensus after almost two weeks of listing. --BDD (talk) 17:58, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Either this Charles Manson site is notable or it isn't. Either way, there doesn't seem to be a good reason to redirect it to its namesake, where it isn't mentioned. BDD (talk) 17:21, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete I likewise don't see a redirect from a website to a street address. Mangoe (talk) 12:33, 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.

Πραικόκιον[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) 16:25, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not especially related to Ancient Greek. Gorobay (talk) 17:19, 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.

April 31[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 May 6#April 31

Wikipedia:IAP[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 May 2#Wikipedia:IAP

Le Canard[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 Canard. --BDD (talk) 16:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence that this was ever used as an name for this aircraft, referred to in all contemporary cources as the Fabre Hydravion. TheLongTone (talk) 16:40, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Retarget to Le Canard enchaîné. Si Trew (talk) 21:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Canard, as "Le" is French for "The", and "Canard" is French, so it should point to the disambiguation page. -- 70.24.250.192 (talk) 21:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per 70.24. Oddly, via a search I hadn't found that DAB (I was probably nodding); my previous suggestion is already listed there. Si Trew (talk) 10:06, 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.

T:WPMA[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. --BDD (talk) 16:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recently created cross namespace redirect, and using a name "WPMA" which conflicts with another wikiproject: WP:MA. John Vandenberg (chat) 17:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I created the redirect, and I might be the only one using it so far ... but it's a heavily edited page with an awkward name, so I think it would be a good idea to have a shortcut of some kind. What do you suggest, John? - Dank (push to talk) 18:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:MILHIST is a very conscientious and very active project. Although a CNR, this does not conflict with anything (which is ironic when most of the subjects are things about conflicts) and so should stay. If it helps editors to improve Wikipedia, and there is no confusion, it should stay. Si Trew (talk) 20:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the name conflicts with WP:MA, move to {{WPMH/A}}, first creating {{WPMH}} as a shortcut for {{WikiProject Military history}}, which I'm genuinely surprised to find doesn't already exist. How about that? — Scott • talk 20:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I bow to your better knowledge. On a search, it didn't seem to conflict to me. But that seems a reasonable way to do it. I am happy to create the template and docs once consensus is reached. Si Trew (talk) 20:39, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Scott: There is a WP:WPMH which points to Milhist. For one extra character, I would prefer WP:WPMH/A pointing at this redirect, to avoid a 'T:' redirect. If this announcements page flourishes, and most milhist stuff does, it will become bigger than one template soon enough, and the T: prefix will be silly. I see T: prefixes as being for templates people use frequently that have documentation which needs to be consulted to get the invocation parameters right. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Might be a slight misunderstanding here, John - I'm suggesting Template:WPMH, not T:WPMH. I don't see the point of "T:" at all; it only applies to mentioning a template, rather than using it, which is not a particularly useful saving. — Scott • talk 00:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, a 'template redirect' to the template. gotcha, and I agree that would be useful to some, but I doubt it would be listed as an official shortcut, whereas something like WP:WPMH/A or WP:MILHIST/ANN might become a stable and useful shortcut. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:26, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I still have a disconnect here. What would WP:WPMH/A point to? I thought we were talking about a template. — Scott • talk 01:47, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I have been a bit obtuse. I am suggesting that 'T:WPMA' be moved to WP:WPMH/A, which would point to Template:WPMILHIST Announcements. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:42, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Right, okay, so you are in fact suggesting a CNR as template shortcut. I can't see what particular advantage that would offer? — Scott • talk 13:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Scott: Yes. We have a lot of similar CNR at Category:Redirects to template from non-template namespace (btw, ignore the characters in that cat due to the RfD of Template:R_from_character and a bug in a template somewhere). My thinking is that it is better to have a CNR from a WP: alias than a CNR in mainspace like T: . T: shortcuts should be limited to cases where a large segment of the community needs to refer to the template documentation in order to invoke it correctly, or established and widespread uses like the DYK T: exceptions. This Announcements page has 389 viewers in the last month, 229 watchers and 177 transclusions. It is too early to guess what percentage are going to use the T: shortcut, the redirect having only been created recently. However it has two shortcuts already, created long ago, being Template:WPMHA and WP:MHREQ, and combined they receive about 10 hits per month. I dont see sufficient justification for using the disputed T: prefix. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:04, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I still really don't follow why there would need to be a CNR at all for this! But I didn't know there was already a {{WPMHA}}, otherwise I wouldn't have suggested {{WPMH/A}}. Well then, I can now say delete. This redirect is obviously superfluous. — Scott • talk 13:47, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
7900 edits by 155 authors, 229 watchers ... seems like it's "flourishing" to me. - Dank (push to talk) 00:43, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not opposed to Scott's intended move but I don't think there's an audience at WikiProject Middle Ages that needs the existing shortcut. I think it could be left, as is. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Chris troutman, while the Middle Ages project may not be very active, reusing their shortcut creates confusion. Ideally all milhist shortcuts use one of a few 'base' shortcuts, so they can be easily remembered. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't matter much to me, as long as there's a shortcut that's actually short. Otherwise it's a longcut. - Dank (push to talk) 02:39, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I've notified MILHIST project; hopefully we get some input on which shortcut they prefer. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:39, 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) 16:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note after the close that, per discussion here, on John Vandenberg's talk page, and above, I've moved the redirect to T:WPMHA. If this doesn't work for anyone, please let me know. - Dank (push to talk) 22:44, 29 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.

Next Hungarian parliamentary election[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. This ended up being a bit of a judgment call. The target article has been blanked for a while as a potential copyvio, but I investigated the page as it stood prior to the blanking, and there was nothing about events on 25 May. As it was describing events not in the future, the redirect was inaccurate. No prejudice against recreation with an appropriate target. --BDD (talk) 16:34, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's after election and nobody will create an article for prospective election. maybe it's too early but it's easy to forget to remove this redirect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aight 2009 (talk • contribs) 10:07, 9 April 2014

  • Keep. I live in Hungary but don't have a vote here. The national elections were held on 6 April, but there is a second round in a couple of weeks to then sort out the actual seating arrangements and so on. This is exactly the right target. Si Trew (talk) 11:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Well what about that, a campaigning van just went straight past my front door with its tannoy on asking "Vote for Me". This is obviously the right target. Si Trew (talk) 12:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't live in Hungary but I learned that after constitution was replaced in 2012 ther is no two round system. Aight_2009 — Preceding undated comment added 17:21, 9 April 2014‎
    I'm not sure, they might be campaigning for the European elections if there are any? Usually in the UK they are held at the start of May. I did look at the article and it says that it is the first time they have done it in a single round, but my hungarian wife who does have a vote but couldn't cast it said there were two rounds. My wife and I always vote, when we can: that is what gives you the right to complain about things. I'll double check this at some time tomorrow. 21:40, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. I think you are right it was one round, e.g. here:
    "To Viktor, the spoils". The Economist. 7 April 2014. Retrieved 9 April 2014.
    So I don't know what they were campaigning for this afternoon, I can never understand Tannoy announcements in any language. Perhaps we were being warned of nuclear war for all I know. Normally I just hear the ice-cream van. Si Trew (talk) 22:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - ideally, I think "Next X election" would redirect to "List of elections in X" - where that doesn't exist, it's unclear what to do. This is obviously going to be a common search term, and redlinking will just encourage creation of something (and I can't imagine salting making sense). So until a better target emerges, I can't really support any suggestion. WilyD 08:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a few weeks ago, listed on March 18, we had [Next Swiss federal election]] and that was closed as no consensus. Next Hungarian parliamentary election is already out of date and there is no Recent Hungarian parliamentary election or Latest Hungarian parliamentary election or Last Hungarian parliamentary election. If it were to go anywhere, it would have to go to the next one: for which we haven't an article. Si Trew (talk) 10:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I added a pic of campaign posters from different parties to the article. So at least a little good has come out of this. I didn't want to take the posters down until the election finished: that is something called democracy. Si Trew (talk) 23:36, 10 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) 16:32, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A notice to Hungarians for the next Hungarian parliamentary elections, for the European Parliament, on 25 May 2014
There is a European parliamentary election in Hungary on 25 May, so I suppose it depends if you mean "Hungarian parliamentary elections" to mean elections to the Hungarian national parliament, or elections in Hungary to a parliament generally. I include a picture of the official notice on the left. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonTrew (talk • contribs) 19:27, 23 April 2014
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.

Νεολογισμός[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) 16:35, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not especially Greek. Gorobay (talk) 16:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Latin. And, of course, itself a neologism. Si Trew (talk) 19:28, 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.

Μονόχρωμος[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) 16:35, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not especially Greek. Gorobay (talk) 16:24, 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.

Μονόφθογγος[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) 16:36, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not especially Greek. Gorobay (talk) 16:14, 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.

Λογορροια[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) 16:36, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not especially Greek. Gorobay (talk) 16:13, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Thanks to Gorobay, sincerely, for bringing all these up, because they hurt not help readers trying to find information. Either they are in Hellenic/Greek Wikipedia or they are not, but there is no point sending a Greek reader to an English article by way of an external search that has it with the redirect in Greek alphabet. Neither of the two topics at what is a DAB (and shouldn't be, per WP:TWODABS) has a link to Greek Wikipedia; this is simply unhelpful for people trying to search for information. Logo- is Greek and then into Lain I think, I am not sure where the back end comes from. Si Trew (talk) 19:34, 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.

Some redirects to disambiguation page Alpha 5[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. Aye-yi-yi-yi-yi... --BDD (talk) 16:38, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The helpfulness of all of these redirects is highly questionable. For the above nominated redirects with the word "Alpha" spelled out, none of the entries that are on the page yet have their "5" known by the roman numeral "V". For the others, all instances on the page thus far are not known by the "α" character; they all have the word "Alpha" spelled out. Due to this, all of these redirects seem to not aide a reader in finding proper information. Steel1943 (talk) 15:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all. If there are things that are referred to as "Alpha V" or "αv", etc then they can and should be added to the disambiguation page as articles or as redlinks. Even if there aren't then it is perfectly plausible that people would search for one or more of the targets using these terms, whether or not those targets use that form. In short, it seems that at worst these are harmless (so no reason to delete) and potentially beneficial (an obvious keep). Thryduulf (talk) 16:34, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all for now, plus suggestion for future refinement (when it becomes necessary).
While you are right in your "5 vs. V" statement in regard to the entries currently listed (which is only a subset of articles which might be listed there in the future), the second statement isn't correct - there are many examples, where "α" and "Alpha" are used interchangeable.
I think, these redirects are part of a very useful infrastructure (which is still WIP) to find a particular subject. They all represent variations of the same search term in different alphabets and spelling variants (and all of them are actually used). I deliberately concentrated them all into this one place to see what gets added and sort this out. I envision (and apparently this is what you have in mind as well), that we will soon establish another disambiguation page under Alpha V and then move all those entries ending on "V" there (crosslinking between these disambiguation pages through See Also links, thereby following the example presented by other disambiguation pages such as "A5", "AV", "α5"). If you check out our list of existing articles via advanced search, you will find that we already have many articles, which contain either "Alpha V"/"Alpha-V"/"αV"/"α-V" (or "5-alpha") in their name, so there should be more than enough stuff to justify such a disambiguation page. However, I am not an expert on chemistry or genetics and most of these articles seem to evolve around such topics, that's why I did not compile a list of articles for this future disambiguation page myself yet. But with those redirects in place now, they will "naturally" accumulate on the "Alpha 5" disambiguation page over the course of the next few weeks and once enough such articles are listed (by people who are familiar with these subjects), we can change the "Alpha V" redirect into a new disambiguation page. This is also the reason for the HTML comments suggesting this on all the pages involved and the reason for the Lookfrom and Intitle templates added to the See Also section (which you removed, although such templates can be found on many other disambiguation pages as well) - I was already preparing this next step.
While it makes alot of sense to distinguish between "*5" and "*V" in the future (although I seem to remember having seen articles using both of them intermixed as well), IMO it doesn't make sense to distinguish between "α" and "Alpha", as they are used intermixed in many cases. If you go through the list of articles containing "Alpha 5" or "Alpha-5" you will find that alot of them also use nomenclatures around "α5"/"α 5"/"α-5"/"A5"/"a5", sometimes even in multiple combinations. If we would create separate disambiguation pages for "α*" and "Alpha*", many articles would have to be listed in both of them, making it more difficult to maintain those disambiguation pages. Alpha-5 beta-1, Laminin, alpha 5, Alpha-v beta-5, Integrin alpha-5, Integrin alpha-V, and dozens more...
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 17:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all with extreme prejudice to the (disambiguation) ones that don't disambiguate anything at all and look like they would be disambiguation pages but are not, instead are redirects to another DAB page that doesn't even have "(disambiguation)" in its title. Why do you want twenty six redirects to the same DAB? That is what the search engine is for. In 2009 I had this for Alfred I, Prince of Windisch-Gratz here at RfD who had 31 redirects (to an article, not a DAB) most of which were deleted, I cannot find that discussion now. Si Trew (talk) 21:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 December 23#Alfred Candidus Ferdinand Windischgratz. That's pretty special! (Tip, to find RfD discussions try checking what links to the current or former target of the redirect that was being discussed.) — Scott • talk 14:37, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The "(disambiguation)"-redirects exist per our editing guideline WP:DABNAME. They are mandantory for disambiguation pages with primary subjects, but are recommended elsewhere as well. Going through "(disambiguation)" pages is the preferred method of deliberately linking to a disambiguation page in order to make it easier to distinguish such links from accidental links to a disambiguation page. Nevertheless, the actual disambiguation page itself is typically under a title without the "(disambiguation)" (unless a primary topic resides under this name). Some templates append the "(disambiguation)" to links by default (unless overridden).--Matthiaspaul (talk) 23:13, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The redirects ending "(disambiguation)" all redirect to disambiguation pages, and are thus strongly recommended by the WP:INTDABLINK guideline, and by disambiguation naming guidelines noted by Mattiaspaul. Thryduulf (talk) 09:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding numbers, I am aware of articles with alot more valid incoming redirects. It's not a question of numbers, but of suitability. If the redirects serve the purposes lined out at WP:DISAMB they are fine. Before I created them, I checked that any of these combinations is actually used in already existing articles (although not necessarily as red-links yet), this makes it highly likely, that any of them is or will be used as input into the search box by some. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 23:13, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep α and "alpha" are used interchangeably for several of the entries. "V" and "5" are reasonable options, if there are further entries that are for the letter V instead of numeral V, then a separate disambiguation page can be hived in the future. -- 70.24.250.192 (talk) 21:58, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gorobay: might have a useful contribution to this since he or she has been listing a lot of Greek-language redirects. Of course α is used all over the place in maths and science, but to mix a Greek symbol with a Roman numeral and do all the possible permutations does not seem to be helpful to a search. I take back the comment about my prejudice against the ones ending (disambiguation), per the editing guidelines stated, but by that reasoning we don't need the ones without (disambiguation). It's just too many. My basic argument (that I can't find) that I put many five years ago is not that it hinders a search but it encourages inconsistency in articles themselves if editors choose different names in related articles (it wouldn't matter if the articles were unrelated) and that this confuses readers who might assume they are different things. This was shown at Xerox PARC (unfortunately I don't have the book but it was Somers's book on Machine Translation and called by that title, and is referenced at that article) that they built an MT system to translate user manuals, obviously as a first pass that was then tidied by a human translator, but by limiting the vocabulary – a necessary step at the time for the MT system to work at all – they found that comprehension amongst readers of the manuals also improved rather than calling it a "button" then a "pushbutton" then a "toggle" then a "pressbutton" and so on. It is this reasoning that I am applying here: nothing wrong with redirects as such (otherwise we just might as well delete the concept) but to have permutations like this for something that is already a DAB, to my mind is likely to increase rather than reduce confusion. Si Trew (talk) 11:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The redirects without the disambiguation are for people searching for this content, or who are attempting to link to a specific topic without realising there is disambiguation. Both forms are needed. Thryduulf (talk) 12:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • In order to further illustrate my point for creating these redirects, I added a number of example entries with "V" to the Alpha 5 disambiguation page. As you will see, even the combination Greek letters with Roman numbers is actually used (αV) and (at least for the provided examples) needs to be distinguished from similar entries using Arabic numbers (α5). I have, however, also found examples, where Roman and Arabic numbers were mixed, so the exact semantics may be even specific to the relevant field of science - and that's why I think adding more examples and possibly streamlining the spelling within Wikipedia should better be left to experts in these areas. All we can do is making "casual" readers aware of these subtleties, so that they actually find the correct article they are looking for. My approach was to combine them all on this one disambiguation page for now - with the option of splitting out to other disambiguation pages like Alpha V in the future once enough stuff has accumulated.
Regarding the "consistency" issue. I very much see and appreciate this point as well - if we think of an article as a module (in software engineering f.e.), every incoming redirect is a predefined (and presumably valid) interface into that module that can be docked on and that needs to be maintained - if it reflects some real-world need, everything is fine (that's what the module is good for), but if it is not well-formed, it only increases the complexity and makes future maintenance more difficult, and if someone takes the faulty interface for granted and starts using it, it will even be responsible for spreading faulty information (that's why I propose redirects from obvious misspellings and ad-hoc miscapitalizations into articles to be deleted (or otherwise seriously salted) instead of maintaining them - see other discussions). However, in this case, I think, the current arrangement (or a future split-out of Alpha V) will actually raise the awareness for the existance of different spelling variants and thereby it will aid a more conscientious and consistent usage of them in articles. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 15:57, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really a question of software maintenance (which I have been doing for all my professional career, just to declare an interest), who cares about that? Well, we care about that because that is why we are at AfD and RfD and CSD and wherever, not the software itself but essentially the encyclopaedia articles are a large bunch of stuff that needs to be tied up and so on and it is we editors who do the maintenance just as we are now. It is more a question of whether readers who know nothing about software and want to find out about "Alpha 5" (or "Alpha V" and so on) will be helped or hindered by all these redirects, and whether editors who add information and find a blue link will then create links all over the place to the wrong articles, to DABs and so on. They are the only criteria; I am not making some kind of political statement here unless you consider that "help readers find the information they want" is a political statement. I just think 26 redirects to the same DAB with very minor variations is too many to be useful. Were they useful, I would have no problem with them at all. Si Trew (talk) 19:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see a high congruence between us here, except for, perhaps, that we draw somewhat different conclusions or take a slightly different approach in our attempt to reach the common goal. As I wrote I already envisioned splitting out all the "V" stuff to Alpha V at some point in the future, but if we'd do that now, wouldn't that remedy your concerns, not only by reducing the number of incoming redirects into each of these disambiguation pages, but also by emphasizing a distinction between "5" and "V" (even at the risk that some not yet listed articles may end up on both pages in the future)? --Matthiaspaul (talk) 09:09, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete some: Specifically, delete the ones with "(disambiguation)", since those are utterly implausible search terms. Keep the rest per WP:CHEAP. I admit, the mix of Roman numerals and Greek letters does look a little weird, but there's only one thing the user could reasonably be looking for. --NYKevin 14:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Striking part of my vote per WP:INTDABLINK and the above discussion. --NYKevin 14:27, 28 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.

User/Hakam[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 as uncontroversial housekeeping - unambiguously created in error. — Scott • talk 14:34, 24 April 2014 (UTC)}}[reply]

This is an improperly titled, implausible redirect. Epicgenius (talk) 15:02, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete. It's certainly an implausible redirect. If it was created as a redirect to a draft in the creator's userspace that was then moved to mainspace I could understand it's provenance (even if it would still be inappropriate), equally a redirect to a user:Hakam (the account exists, but has no edits to en.wp) would be wrong but understandable, but this was created pointing to the current target directly which is rather puzzling. I'm not sure how this can be described as "improperly titled" though as there is no policy that defines which redirects to articles (generally or specific to this topic area) are "proper" or "impropper" that this breaches - slashes are explicitly allowed in article titles, and redirects from subpage titling schemes are also not prohibited. Thryduulf (talk) 16:46, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • It probably was intended to be a link from User:Hakam; that is how it is an improper title. I wasn't referring to the slash. Epicgenius (talk) 18:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Thryduulf. Just a typo probably: on some keyboard layouts slash and colon are just a shift key away. It was created by User:HakamShah, so it is probably just a slip. Si Trew (talk) 21:50, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Thryduulf. -- 70.24.250.192 (talk) 21:59, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_22&oldid=1080034760"