Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 July 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 25[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 25, 2014.

Mullergraph[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 —GFOLEY FOUR!— 01:23, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect term does not appear in the target article and for a good reason because it's not in the sources. JMP EAX (talk) 21:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: apparently this is the name for technology in subject that was invented here, on Wikipedia. I can't find any other mention. Still, the connection to the subject is pretty obvious (Müller + graph), and this redirect is there since 2006. Apparently the target may be deleted soon. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 07:27, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it was not even the same thing. An editor who thought he was "saving" Mullgraph added references about a completely different topic (Rigi). The article is now all about Rigi. There are exactly zero references calling Rigi (or its graphs) "Mullergraphs". The redirect is not covered by any reasons at WP:POFRED because I've removed all the original text about Mullergraphs as failing WP:V. (Briefly, Mullergraphs were supposed to be graphs of computers on a network, with a "health score" for each. No sources could be found for this description/concept. Rigi visualizes software components, somewhat similar to UML and call graphs.) Some types of confusions are covered by redirects, like spelling mistakes, but not complete inventions of terms that you think should apply but aren't in any sources. Otherwise I should be able to redirect wikipediot to... well... I won't tell you to whom. JMP EAX (talk) 18:17, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was pretty sure that Rigi was implementing mullergraphs, although re-reading article I don't know how I came to this idea. As this software indeed seems completely unrelated, delete. P.S.: JMP EAX, have you ever heard of "civility"? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 23:08, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete "Mullergraph" gets no gbook or gscholar hits, so there is no real possibility that it is a term of art that anyone is searching for; in any case there's no reliable source out there that can tell us what it is. Mangoe (talk) 12:51, 28 July 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.

The price is wrong, bitch[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 —GFOLEY FOUR!— 01:03, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target article. Launchballer 17:16, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Being mentioned is not a criteria. In event someone enters that quote, they will get the implicit information that it is from Happy Gilmore. Neither harmful nor new (6 years old), so keep. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:37, 4 June 2014 (UTC).
  • if kept Add Documentation+Reference as we can now read redirect pages without pressing edit, documentaiton should appear on the redirect page, just like redirect tags do. So references can be included. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:21, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless someone adds this quote to the target. Redirects should be discussed at their targets. --NYKevin 13:45, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep As I've mentioned before, I'm partial to {{R from phrase}} and {{R from quotation}}. Ideally they would be discussed at their target pages, but they're still useful without. A reader hears or remembers "The price is wrong, bitch" and wants to know or remember where it comes from. They search... and oh yes, Happy Gilmore. Perhaps not the most useful thing Wikipedia can do, but harmless enough. --BDD (talk) 16:51, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either delete (too generic IMO) or at least document. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 18:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per NYKevin. Quotes should normally go to Wikiquote; Wikipedia redirects do not constitute a quote database. — This, that and the other (talk) 03:23, 8 June 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, — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 15:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep key catchphrase from the movie. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:23, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If it's not worth mentioning in the target article, then I don't see the point of a redirect in a case like this. None of the numerous possible reasons listed at WP:POFRED seems to apply to random quotes from someone. JMP EAX (talk) 21:50, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete catch-phrases in a show or any sort should not have redirects unless they;re important enough to be discussed, with secondary sources, in the target article. And even then, the question is whether they;re likely to be encountered outside of the context of the show. DGG ( talk ) 16:33, 26 July 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.

Лазурный поползень[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 both —GFOLEY FOUR!— 01:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not especially Russian. Gorobay (talk) 17:22, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Indeterminate. @Gorobay: Hey Gorobay. Deletion nominations of any stripe should contain a sufficiently transparent rationale to understand the grounds upon which deletion is sought; we don't need an essay but your nomination is a cipher. I suppose you might be saying they're mistranslations, or you might be saying the Cyrillic characters are not formed properly, or that they're in some sort of pidgin, or as a native speaker you don't recognize them... or something else. I am the creator of the redirects but speak no Russian at all nor can I read any Cyrillic, so I must rely on people like you; I might very well agree they should be deleted if I knew what the problem was. In creating both, I relied on Avibase, the World Bird Database, which provides names of birds in a smattering of languages, and copied and pasted the names from there (1, 2). Both redirects when searched through Google show they are used as the title of these birds at least by some (though that may be incestuous – they may be all compounding the original error). Also, regarding the first name, at the Russian Wikipedia, they provide the redirect title I used as the red link for Sitta azurea, the Blue Nuthatch: see ru:Поползневые#Систематика, which indicates it may be the proper title. By the way, if these are indeed "bad Russian" and should be deleted, it would be great if you, as someone fluent (I assume), would track down the correct bird names in Russian.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t know Russian, and as far as I know the terms are good Russian. “Not especially” is a bit of jargon I use at RfD. You are right: its meaning is opaque; sorry for the confusion. This is what I mean: These nuthatches have nothing to do with Russia; i.e. they are not especially Russian (or Vietnamese, or Polish, or any of the other languages you have made redirects from). There is no reason to create redirects from languages unrelated to the subjects of their target articles; see WP:FORRED. Moreover, there has for a while been consensus that such redirects should be deleted. Gorobay (talk) 01:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, please do state your reasons like that in future nominations. You're right that neither has any direct connection with all of the languages for which I provided redirects, though Przevalski's Nuthatch does not have "nothing to do with Russia" – as noted in the article, "The common name and Latin binomial commemorate the Russian explorer Nikolaï Prjevalski, who discovered the species in 1884" as well as that the bird "was first scientifically described in 1891 by Russians Mikhail Mikhailovich Berezovsky and Valentin Bianch" but this is rather neither here nor there. I am wary of noting anything is "just ... an ... essay", but let's be clear that this essay's pronouncements are not the product of a rock solid consensus following in the wake of a well advertized discussion – and I disagree with that essay, or more precisely the bounds of the list of topics it states are exempt from its ambit: "Original or official names of people, places, institutions, publications or products".

One problem with this terse essay is that it provides no explanation whatever of why it has focused on these exemptions; what it is about them that makes them good targets for foreign language redirects, as opposed to other thing?. Should species names be added? Why yes and why no? In fact, the page does not provide any guidance, bases, rationale of when, where and why we should avoid creating foreign redirects, and when we should not. The very fact the page is mostly inchoate is a good reason to not follow it reflexively. I do not want to go too far afield and post my reasons here that properly belong at a Village Pump or other discussion but it seems that at least one connection between the "exemptions" is that they are all tangible and unchanging things (all the target of fixed noun titles)—not ideas or philosophies or other moving targets with lots of gradation and opportunity for confusion as to whether one article topic is equivalent to another language's—which species would fit right into.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:56, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Fuhghettaboutit: Comment yeah, everything has to be argued case by case: it would be a lot easier sometimes I feel if things were grouped, but the consensus seems to be that things should be argued pretty much one by one. Gorobay has been hunting down these foreign script redirects for weeks now until Gorobay is starting to bore everyone to tearsone sees the pattern: if the term itself involves the target in that language then it's useful, but we are not a translation dictionary.
I note also that when I check the targets almost always there is no Interwiki link to the language in question, so what happens in practice is that a Russian-language reader (or whatever other script etc for other redirects: Gorobay hasn't tried Hebrew and Arabic yet but I bet will soon!) will likely end up looking at a page in English in a script and language they don't understand. How is that useful? Okay, it could perhaps occasionally be marginally useful in that they can use Google Translate... but on the whole it is just a WP:SURPRISE to do that, as well as WP:FORRED as Gorobay notes. Si Trew (talk) 09:23, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonTrew: Russian person who speaks English or some English wants to find information about Przevalski's nuthatch and knows it's name in Russian (but does not know what it's called in English) so they type in the name just looking for info: If there's a Russian Wikipedia page, Google is smart enough to show them that as a higher result; if there's no Russian article they find the English page and that's useful for them as well, but then, because they're interested in the topic and realize by finding there's no Russian page one is needed, is prompted to start the Russian page. That's damn useful. It's an analog for just why we make redlinks internally in Articles but here externally fosters foreign article creation, and English is the closest we have to a lingua Franca on this planet, with vast numbers of people speaking some of it, far more than any other language, so it's not the same consideration as, say, the same conversation if we were at another language Wikipedia. From another perspective: Russian person is searching for Przevalski's nuthatch and knows it's name in English but not in Russian (not at all unlikely for many things, given the corpus of English); they want to start an article but are not sure what to call it, they search for it in English to see if they can hunt down the Russian, and this redirect allows them to do that. Also damn useful, maybe even vital.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:11, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Fughettaboutitt:. Yes, I can see the point there and indeed I have pushed that point myself: after all I am an inclusionist and want people to find the information they are looking for. By the way when I was having a go at Gorobay he or she probably has a higher success rate here at RfD than anyone: I am sure he or she doesn't bring things arbitrarily and so my sarcasm was exactly that! I have been told off for making jokes.... so I should stop doing it. Not on articles of course but to have a joke on a discussion page seems OK to me and is meant as respect not criticism.
I can see both sides of both sides. WP wants people to come here and to learn about stuff. But do we lead or mislead? I can see your point; but would a reader who can read the Cyrillic alphabet but not the Latin one then find it useful or surprising to get an English article about a Russian term? I don't really know the answer to that. Yes, they can get a rough translation from Google Translate or whatever which just uses statistical machine translation; something I know quite a lot about; but is it helpful that they get "a Nuthatch is a bird that forages for nuts and lives in a hatch. It is endemic to...." (I made that up of course, but it can be that bad: and doesn't claim otherwise)? I don't know. Si Trew (talk) 12:22, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:FORRED, which is really a statement of precedent in consensus (like, say, WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES) more than just an essay. Przevalski's nuthatch may have been named for a Russian, but this is true about a great many species. It's really not a defining characteristic. And as far as I can tell, the blue nuthatch has no connection to any Russian topic. If either of them were native to Russia, that would be good enough for me. As such, they should go. --BDD (talk) 17:39, 28 May 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) 16:41, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. No particular Russian connection. The Whispering Wind (talk) 20:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not harmful, and I suspect, not new. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:38, 4 June 2014 (UTC).
  • Delete both per lack of connection with Russia. Russian speaker, who want to find info about these birds, is much more likely to look it up in Russian Wikipedia and follow interwiki links. Or search for latin name after learning it from ru:Поползневые#Систематика. FWIW, being Russian, I find the implication that Russian speakers can't grasp the meaning of the first word in English Wikipedia pretty insulting. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 18:36, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete blue, keep Przevalski. Blue has nothing to do with the Russian language, but Przevalski (who described it) was Russian, and its association with him is enough. We don't keep everything just because of the nationality of its describer (having Häst ==> Horse, just because the describer Linnæus was Swedish, would be absurd), but when the name itself is connected to the describer, it's a significantly different situation. Nyttend (talk) 22:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete blue, keep Przevalski per Nyttend's reasoning. The Whispering Wind (talk) 12:28, 26 June 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, — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 15:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both These are from Malaya and China, and neither of these use Russian as a language of conversation. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:44, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both Being discovered by a Russian scientist does not give a reason for a redirect in that language. Doing this comprehensively would add several million useless redirects. The common Russian (or whatever) name for a characteristic Russian (or whatever) animal or plant can be another matter, but this should still be very selective, there's still the problem that this is WP, not Wiktionary. DGG ( talk ) 16:40, 26 July 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.

Bowery Street[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 Redirect to Bowery —GFOLEY FOUR!— 01:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating on behalf of anonymous user 67.81.210.109 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Original rationale follows:

I found a redirect (Bowery Street) that I feel should be deleted because it leads to another article (Coney Island) that has no mentioning about this non-notable street at all, but I am not sure if I can start a discussion here because it was originally a redirect, then turned into an article, then deleted via AfD. Then a few months later, it was recreated as another redirect, turned into an article again, then redirected again via another AfD.
— 67.81.210.109 13:43, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I am neutral on this technical nomination. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 14:43, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Re-redirect to Bowery, which is a more notable street in the same city. Epicgenius (talk) 02:08, 27 July 2014 (UTC) (Or to Bowery (disambiguation)? Epicgenius (talk) 01:01, 30 July 2014 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete or Keep and finish merge. The problem here is that the previous AFD decision was to merge the article at Bowery Street into Coney Island, as Epicgenius then recommended, but this was never carried out. Someone simply redirected instead, so there is now no mention of the street in the Coney Island article. There is no need for this redirect, which was twice created by Epicgenius, but if it is to remain the merge to Coney Island should be completed, so the street is mentioned in the Coney Island article. It definitely should not be redirected to Bowery, however, since that is an incorrect use of the name and would be misleading to readers. The Bowery is never correctly called Bowery Street. 72.251.70.54 (talk) 16:40, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Bowery is also a neighborhood, so the redirect to the Bowery article makes perfect sense. Actually, you just also gave a very good reason that it should redirect to the Manhattan street, defeating the very action you were arguing against. –Epicgenius (talk) 01:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete The IP editor "merged" it correctly: there's nothing worth saving in the old article. "Bowery Street" occurs all over the US and Coney Island shouldn't be the target on the basis of one minor street. Mangoe (talk) 13:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete there is no notable street called "Bowery Street", so there does not need to be a redirect anywhere
  • Redirect to Bowery How the heck are so many people voting delete? There is a street called Bowery, Bowery Street is a blatantly obvious synonym for this. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:08, 31 July 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.

Adomas Mickevičius[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. This is a long-standing redirect, nearly 8 years old, so per WP:RFD#HARMFUL, there needs to be evidence of real harm for deletion. There is none in this case and WP:RNEUTRAL makes the neutrality of redirects clear. Finally, this is a plausible search term, used in reliable sources eg here. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 16:51, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect creates false impression about Adam Mickiewicz. Mickiewicz have never use dlithuanian firstname and surname. Adomas Mickevičius should be used only on lithuanian Wikipedia due to their language policy. Here we are on english Wikipedia where only original name of Mickiewicz should be used as he is decribed in modern history as Adam Mickiewicz. Andrzej19 (talk) 08:51, 25 July 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.

Ovin[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: review of speedy deletion happens at WP:DRV. (non-admin closure) — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 20:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This was inappropriately speedied under R3: This should be a plausible redirect, but I am nominating it here to give it a chance for ciscussion WhisperToMe (talk) 05:55, 25 July 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.

Fomato[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: review of speedy deletion happens at WP:DRV. (non-admin closure) — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 20:50, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This was inappropriately speedied under R3: This should be a plausible redirect, but I am nominating it here to give it a chance for ciscussion WhisperToMe (talk) 05:55, 25 July 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.

Talk:UHF (band)[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, as redirect. Converting this to an active talk page without discussion doesn't seem productive, but this is plainly not G8 eligible. G8 applies to talk pages without a corresponding page, not article. --BDD (talk) 13:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"[A] talk page with no corresponding subject page". G8 applies always to these talkpages but I frankly don't know why the CSD process ends like this all the time. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 04:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment UHF (band) is a bluelink, so it does exist, so the talk page does have a subject page. Redirecting this talk page to the subjectpage redirect's destination's talk page is a reasonable thing to do. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural closure: I've turned it into proper talk page. Talk pages of redirects are for discussion of these redirects, not target articles. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 20:54, 25 July 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.

Telecommunications in Africa[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) 13:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:REDLINK. If there is no consensus for that, at minimum they should be consistent, e.g. all redirecting to the continental outline article, or all to Telecommunication#By region (perhaps different for the "Communications in" ones). Note also Telecommunications in Europe, which is not a redirect but a completely empty article with a template on it. (Communications in Oceania does not exist; if this discussion doesn't close with a consensus to delete, it should probably be created.) quant18 (talk) 01:39, 25 July 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.

Communications in England[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 Redirect to Telecommunications in the United Kingdom] —GFOLEY FOUR!— 01:11, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:REDLINK TheChampionMan1234 00:21, 25 July 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.

Οχλοκρατία[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 —GFOLEY FOUR!— 01:04, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not especially Greek. TheChampionMan1234 00:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:FORRED: although this term is indeed Greek, the concept is neither limited to nor most prominent in Greek-speaking countries. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 03:36, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Greece is not the only place where mob rule has occurred. WP:NOT a translation dictionary -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:47, 26 July 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_July_25&oldid=1142587364"