Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 June 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 5[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 5, 2014.

Newark by-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 change to disambig page. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deletion or at least a disambiguation page. This is a current event, but there was also the Newark by-election, 1943 which is as worthy of the redirect from "Newark by-election" — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎The Almightey Drill (talk • contribs) 20:52 5 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep: give the obvious bias towards recentism (one would expect that ongoing event concerns more people then something of historical importance), I would simply place a hatnote to the current target and keep it for now. It may seem that this !vote goes against WP:NOTNEWS, but currently the 2014 event seems to be the primary topic anyway: compare pre-redirect page views for 2014 and 1943. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 21:42, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but turn it into a disambiguation page so that either by-election is readily accessible. It'll be old news by next week, particularly because UKIP didn't do as well as the pundits or public were expecting. Incidentally, someone should do a proper write-up of the earlier by-election, because our coverage of that one is presently rather thin. RomanSpa (talk) 05:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and turn into a disambiguation page. The more recent by-election may enjoy more traffic for a short while, but it seems unlikely that it will do so for the long term. --VeryCrocker (talk) 06:34, 6 June 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.

Neither Confirm Nor Deny[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 Glomar response. Though opinion is clearly divided there is no support for the present target that a 'no consensus' close would keep. Therefore a decision needs to be made. The issue with the retarget to 'Glomar response' is that it is redirecting from the general to the particular. Notwithstanding this I find the arguments for this retarget to be somewhat more convincing than those for deletion. The best long-term solution is likely to be a disamb page and it is open to any editor to boldly create such a page outwith this RFD. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 23:42, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the phrase "neither confirm nor deny" is used in many contexts other than nuclear weapons. I'm not sure if the words in the redirect are capitalized in order to refer to policies named "Neither Confirm Nor Deny". However, even if that is the case, the term Neither Confirm Nor Deny (with the words capitalized) is used in the article Murder of Jean McConville to refer to a policy unrelated to nuclear weapons. More generally, the term "neither confirm nor deny" is used in many other contexts, such as in the article Glomar response. I don't think any one place I have found covers neither confirming nor denying things in general, so I think the redirect should probably just be deleted (though alternatively, it could perhaps be made into a whole article or a more general disambiguation page than the one it currently redirects to). Calathan (talk) 22:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:INTDABLINK (and possibly WP:REDYES to promote article creation). The redirect's title doesn't match the name of the disambiguation page, nor is the title related closely enough to the disambiguation page's title for there to be immediate confusion. Steel1943 (talk) 22:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Glomar response, or perhaps a DAB it, but Nuclear ambiguity is already a DAB with just two entries (with almost contradictory meanings, but that's the English language for you). It could be added to Glomar response as a "see also". It is a bit of legalese or politspeak for saying "I'm not telling", and I suppose it could go to poker face (which is an R to DAB) or game of chicken (which is not quite the same) or call my bluff or all kinds of other things, but as a specifically worded response that is understood on all sides that the interlocutor will get no farther with a particular line of questioning (dead end argument?) So Glomar response seems the best. Incidentally, those particular words seem never to be used in the UK courts (or at least not in the formal court reports I read, which are tarted up a bit for publication, nor in the less formal newspaper reports I have ever read of court cases). When did you stop beating your wife? Si Trew (talk) 02:39, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nuke: There is no obvious place where this should go. Search engine results would better serve the reader. --NYKevin 03:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Glomar response as suggested by Si Trew. That article is actually about this phrase, and it is the next-to-top search result for "Neither confirm nor deny" at Google. The current target is by no means the most common use of the phrase. --MelanieN (talk) 21:46, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I note also in the lede we have "Glomarization". Now, in English there is no noun that cannot be verbed – but this has been verbed and then turned into a noun again.
I have this from justice.gov:
  • "OIP Guidance". FOIA Update. justice.gov. 1986. Retrieved 7 May 2014. {{cite web}}: |chapter= ignored (help)
There is also [glomarization.com], a blog that is not RS but tends to indicate it has become a common word in the US and is infiltrating our pure and unsullied English language (turns three times and throws salt over his shoulder, kicks cat). Is it a common term now in the US? Well, not common obviously people say "donuts" more but a well-understood term? I have never heard it this (European) side of the pond. I am surprised that reference is so early, since I lived in the US for a couple of years in Texas from 1999-2002 and I never heard it then yet it was coined before then. Is it just rather a technical term? Si Trew (talk) 09:48, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I give you as parallels Pleading the Fifth and Arkell v. Pressdram. Si Trew (talk) 09:55, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've never heard the terms "Glomar response" or "Glomarization" used outside of that Wikipedia article, and I've lived in the United States my whole life. I don't think the term is very well known. I'm guessing it must be used in legal contexts, but not in everyday conversation. Calathan (talk) 14:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Second thoughts'. In the UK Parliament "Neither confirm nor deny" comes up often in Hansard, te official record of the UK Parliament, e.g.
This is quite nice (in Clause 20 of the Intellectual Property Bill (once passed by Royal Assent, the 2014 Intellectual Property (Northern Ireland) Act):
Perhaps, then, "neither confirm nor deny" is a standard UK Parliamentary phrase for evasion (a DAB but a good one) or evading the question. Begging the question would be wrong, as Fowler makes clear. What do others think? Si Trew (talk) 11:19, 10 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) 18:10, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move "Glomar response" to "Neither confirm nor deny". All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC).
  • Delete There's something to be said for starting from RF's link inversion suggestion but such an article would need a lot of work. It would be better to start from nothing and merge the Glomar/FOIA material into it. Mangoe (talk) 17:31, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Glomar response, since this is the origin and genesis of the term, and still the contemporary usage of it. Ithinkicahn (talk) 01:22, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate. The concept is more general than a phrase used in legislative proceedings, a Glomar response, or any other specific example. (The Glomar response, however, is specific to U.S. FOIA proceedings, and so should continue to have its own article.) I suggest starting with a disambiguation page until somebody wishes to write an article on “non-answer” or similar such topic. 74.96.191.156 (talk) 01:40, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: This is largely a cosmetic relist to superficially decrease the backlog. Further comments are still appreciated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:31, 5 June 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.

WinFF[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. Since information about the subject was removed from the target article, and that has seemed to stick, the argument to delete is clearly stronger here. --BDD (talk) 16:18, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Information about WinFF was deleted from the target article due to lack of source and lack of due weight. Codename Lisa (talk) 08:52, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Well, no, it isn't mentioned anymore because Codename Lisa removed it again. But since it was a single mention with a non-independent source, I think you were right to do so. This is a tangential topic at best. --BDD (talk) 16:19, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I deleted it, then nominated this page (hence my nomination text) ...or at least, I thought so. Then, I realized that the throbber on the tab that posted the change was still throbbing. Probably a temporary disconnection had timed out saving the change. So, there is no "again". Just the one time. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 23:55, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why I said "again." I guess I assumed there was an edit war. --BDD (talk) 03:09, 6 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, BDD (talk) 16:30, 5 June 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.

Template:Cita web[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. Many suggestions for what to do with this redirect, but certainly no agreement. Number 57 20:54, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a dispute on this redirect's talk page over whether this should be kept as a redirect or changed to a full template supporting Spanish parameter names. The issue arises as the template occasionally is added to articles due to copy and paste of untranslated or only partially translated content with references from es.wp.

It should be kept as a redirect. Non-English language parameters are errors and should be treated as such. This highlights to any editor adding translated content that templates also need translating, encouraging them to do so before submission. Otherwise they are much more likely to submit the templates with incorrect foreign parameters, which will then be harder for other editors to fix who don't understand Spanish (the vast majority). JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 14:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. About six years ago I created {{magyar télepulés infobox}} as an infobox template so that I could copy in to all the Hungarian village articles with the infoboxes without having to transcribe them into {{infobox settlement}}. I was told in no uncertain terms by one editor that they should be transcribed, all 2500 of them, rather than having foreign-language terms as attributes (completely hidden from readers but just to editors) in an infobox. Cos that really helps our readers, not to have an infobox as I haven't time to transcribe 2500 infoboxes. But I don't see the point of keeping the "cita" if the template attributes themselves are in English. Si Trew (talk) 20:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment transliterating/translating template parameter names sounds like the job a bot could do in seconds. Could these be imported to draft/user space with Spanish or Hungarian parameter names, have a bot run over them and then moved to article space? Thryduulf (talk) 21:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it probably could be. The point was to move them over first then get the bot to do it. But that wasn't good enough. All the crests for the Hungarian villages etc were imported en masse in SVG format in one go by a bot or script but no, that wasn't acceptable for me to do the same with the infoboxes. At that time we didn't use Draft namespace (it's still kinda new to me) and putting it in User space and doing *another* move of 2500 infoboxes would have been a pain. But your argument is valid, if we can do it that way these days, that's the way to do it. Si Trew (talk) 21:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Hungarian-parameter infobox should have been kept 6 years ago, to auto-translate parameters into English, as done successfully with German infoboxes in over 11,000 pages for many years. Now, WP works by wp:Consensus as a compromise, and deleting a template is not a compromise, but instead the support of dual Hungarian/English parameters would have been the compromise consensus. -Wikid77 (talk) 11:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Those should not be transcluded either. No non-English template should be transcluded in articlespace, as we should not make it impossible for anglophone editors to edit articles on English WikiPedia. The only way non-English parametered templates should exist on Wikipedia is as shimming templates that are either replaced by a bot, or substituted so they generate a standard English-parametered template. And in either case, they should always wrap the English-language template. English Wikipedia should not be restricted to people who know every language in the world. Having multiple non-English templates in several different non-English languages just means you need to know every language to be able to edit any random article. -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 23:06, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as far as I remember I used a kinda inheritance (object-oriented programming) – implemented as the adapter pattern i.e. a shimming template but conceptually inheritance – by using {{Infobox settlement}} and then including each Hungarian parameter value for its equivalent English parameter, if the English parameter one was empty/nonexistent. That achieves the goal of it being dual. The template itself serves as documentation (and it also had documentation) to say what each field meant, and it was my intention then to run a bot once they were all in. However, at the same time there was a drive to get rid of a lot of specialized geographical infobox templates to put them all into the more-generic {{Infobox settlement}}. Personally I disagreed with that because I can't see the problem having a more-specialized, simplified template the general but enormous one: if one is based on (and uses) the other. For that matter there's no requirement that an infobox uses any infobox template at all, that's purely behind-the-scenes and I was tempted just to subst them all, but that would have been rather POINTy. Si Trew (talk) 08:56, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's no need for cita web. By the time I came to look at it there was one instance of it, which had English parameters already. I only changed it to cite web so no-one else would need to check it. For a large task like 2500 articles then an automated process makes sense. If you have local copies at some point a simple search and replace across all of them would do. Otherwise a bot. The'd not have to be moved to user or draft space, except if left in mainspace some might be fixed manually before a bot got to them if there were any delay.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 21:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you mean Template:Magyar település infobox? - your other links don't work but a quick search turned up that.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 21:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that was the fellow. Being English I slur all my vowels and forget the distinctions with these vowels that are distinct in other languages, it is one of the hardest things for me. I can say them I just can't hear them. Si Trew (talk) 21:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Comment Other language Wikipedias (Wikipediae?) sometimes have templates both in English and in native language, to make it easier to transwiki (or because it is the copy that is then translated into the native language). French rarely does, they create their own or translate and then delete the English (usually without the appropriate {{translated page}} tag), Hungarian often does. I don't see why English can't have, for the same reason, but to have the title in Spanish but the attributes/parameters in English is silly. and find it easily enough, and {{cite web}} is interwiki linked from there to English and numerous other languages, so I doubt a Spanish editor would find it hard to find the English version. Si Trew (talk) 21:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can think of two reasons why. One as the oldest and largest WP many things start out on en.wp before appearing on other language Wikipedias. In which case it may often be easiest to copy them over before creating a local version. Two for the same reason (lots of porting from en.wp) disproportionately many editors of non-English WPs can probably understand or at least work with English. So having English templates is much less of a problem. Here though almost any template being copied across probably already exists in English. The English version is probably better and more up to date, is very likely better maintained. So converting any copied templates to English should happen as soon as possible, ideally as soon as they're copied. At the same time the language skills of en.wp users are probably much poorer, likely little better then the general population, and given our geographic diversity any one foreign language is very likely to be very poorly understood. Spanish for example is well understood in the US but is largely unknown in the country with the next most English speakers, India. Hungarian is even less known.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 21:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it would be interesting to know what proportion of template writers are computer programmers. Most computer programmers don't necessarily know English (I remember an excellent Russian programmer telling me) but just treat the English words as symbols like any other mnemonic and so it's not hard for them. In a sense of course we are all computer programmers. Si Trew (talk) 05:59, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unlikely misspelling. This is not a shimming template either. -- 65.94.43.240 (talk) 05:28, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a redirect. It is a very likely spelling, since it is created via a copy-paste operation from Spanish-language Wikipedia. I just cleaned one up today. We do need to show error messages to encourage editors to convert the template parameters to English. The template can even be configured to suggest appropriate parameters by adding to Module:Citation/CS1/Suggestions ("editorial" -> "publisher" is already in there).
Category:Pages with citations using unsupported parameters will track any articles that have untranslated parameters. That category is kept clean by a diligent group of gnomes. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If this exists, it should be a SUBSTITUTION TEMBPLATE since we should not be using non-English in the wikicoding of pages. It is otherwise a misspelling since Spanish is not English and is therefore not a correct spelling. -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 04:47, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No it should not be a substitution template, as that would make it very significantly harder for people to clean up the uses to the English version. The Spanish template will only be in the article a short time, but while it is it will make everybody's job easier - benefiting our readers. Thryduulf (talk) 15:41, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If this exists, then it should be a wrapper to {{cite web}} as a substitution template that translates Spanish parameters into English ones. Or it should be deleted. There's no need to "clean it up" if it is a substitution template, since it will be cleaned up when you substitute it. -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 04:22, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore full template: As with prior templates which for years have auto-translated German parameters/data into English, the current wp:wrapper template should be restored to translate Spanish cites to English, but also expand to translate complete Italian cites to English (as shown with recent Italian example: dif961). Human editors even overlook whether the cite data was in Spanish or Italian, and the template can auto-detect the original language. There is no need to prevent instant autotranslation of cites into English, which are functionally equivalent to hand-edited parameters but also instantaneous and retro-format all prior revisions of any page. Years of experience with the German-language parameters have found them acceptable to remain in pages for over 7 years, where few editors have needed to change the data and the roles of non-English parameters have been obvious from the contents. Also, blanking a full template as a redirect is an improper, implicit template-deletion couched as a redirect to some other template. Restore full template. -Wikid77 (talk) 11:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is the English Wikipedia, not the Spanish, Italian or German one. This should never be acceptable to have non-English language parameters. We should not write our articles in non-English, and this is exactly what has been happening if we do not either delete these things, or replace them as substitution templates instead. Coding an article not in English means that a large portion of our editors can never edit these articles properly, but these articles should be accessible to any English-language editors. -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 22:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps 6 years ago, I too formerly imagined the English Wikipedia was "English-only" but soon learned how the dual-language, German/English infobox parameters quickly helped to translate 10,000 interwiki pages from German WP. Use of other languages in enwiki cannot be prevented simply by deleting a dual-language template (for Italian-to-English or Spanish-to-English). We currently have no Hawaiian-to-English cite templates, and yet the Hawaiian word "Hawai'i" has still been improperly used in numerous pages for years (see pages: Special:Search for "Hawai'i"). Now, even sources for English Wikipedia can be linked as other-language documents. The "English-only" issue applies to article text, rather than template parameter names, and for years, the German-to-English auto-translation in infoboxes has been beneficial. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:13, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the 'improper' is referring to my actions then:
  1. it's not a deletion, it's still in the page history, and will still be if the redirect is kept
  2. It's not broken but works fine as a redirect
  3. It's barely used anyway
I.e. it's not that its existence as a redirect or template causes particular problems now; we are here to decide which is best to minimise problems it might cause in the future.
Meanwhile I note you have created a template with the same functionality, {{Cita news}}, and have changed instances of this template to that (with a pointy summary): [1]. This is certainly improper: per WP:EDITATAFD
Participants in deletion discussions should not circumvent consensus by merging or copying material to another article unilaterally before the debate closes
Although this is not an article the same principle applies; editors should not go unilaterally creating copies of templates during discussions to decide their fate. They especially should not then go changing instances of the template/redirect under discussion to use their copy, subverting the outcome of the discussion.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 23:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is a redirect-for-discussion not TfD: @JohnBlackburne, although {{cita web}} was recently a full template, it was blanked (by you) back into a redirect to foster this sidetrack debate about the prior redirect. Hence, when claiming the new {{cita news}} was created by "merging or copying material" from this redirect, what part of "#REDIRECT Template:Cite_web" generated a template which handles all Italian-language parameters? The confusions in your sketchy reasoning stem from the fact you had shifted the focus from a full template, which translated Spanish parameters into English, by blanking it as a redirect, but meanwhile the new {{cita news}} translates Italian parameters into English (from it:Template:Cita_news) while also supporting Spanish parameters. They are two, very separate templates, with {{cita web}} translating all Spanish parameters, while {{cita news}} can translate all Italian parameters. Regarding other issues, the template {{cita web}} has been used often, almost daily in many cases, but due to failure to auto-translate parameter names, many people replace {cita_web} with {cite_web}, and bolster the illusion of {cita_web} having limited usage (not true). -Wikid77 (talk) 12:13, 30 April, 12:35, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • it was 'recently a full template' for all of a day, after years as a redirect, as determined by the previous discussion. In similar cases where there is disagreement but a previous consensus, such as move discussions, it is normal to revert (if necessary) to the previous stable state/state that is the outcome of consensus, before a discussion to see if consensus as changed. It's not a deletion that needs courtesy unblanking for review. Anyone can see the previous version in its history.
I don't even know what you're trying to say with your last sentence, but the "failure to auto-translate" is no reason for anything: the redirect works fine and has for years. It encourages editors to translate non-English parameters and values before they submit or finish editing. Far better than letting and encouraging them to submit a template with parameters and values in a foreign language understood by only a small minority of readers and editors. If they still submit with non-English content it gets flagged as an obvious error to be fixed, not obscured by auto-translating, but this will happen much less often if its a redirect.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 13:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When {cita_web} is auto-translated into English, it does not have to be "fixed" because it is automatically translated to use the English parameters and show English dates. Similar auto-translation has been done for years with German infobox templates which auto-translate parameters plus several data values from German to English. Hence, years of use have proven how the auto-translation has solved the problem of a "language understood by only a small minority of readers" because anyone can use {cita_web} (regardless of knowing Spanish or Italian) and the citation will display in English. So, since those concerns have been answered, are there any other worries before I restore the full template into {cita_web}? -Wikid77 12:35, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You should wait for this discussion to end and be closed, to see if there's consensus for your change, before doing so.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 13:05, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted - Template:Cita_web[edit]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:17, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is or delete. Changing this to its own template doesn't seem like the right approach. --BDD (talk) 16:18, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give any specific reasons (beyond "wp:IDONTLIKEIT"), because the logical consensus is to expand to the full template (as suggested by 2 other users years ago) but allow either Spanish, Italian or English parameters as the compromise with users who want to allow English-only operation for parameter names. As noted above, for users who do not know other languages, then the Spanish/Italian parameters will be explained in the template's documentation (to "say what each" means) for a broader consensus on that aspect. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have any other templates made for non-English speakers? Should we make more? Does WP:UE only apply in mainspace? (It does not.) --BDD (talk) 16:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are many templates which support non-English text, such as for 11,000 German or Austrian towns with "Einwohner" (population) data. Also there is Template:Okina for non-English punctuation, among many others. -Wikid77 08:18, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's the same principle as WP:FORRED. It's fine to support German in templates related to Germany (I'm assuming these are infoboxen for German and Austrian places?), or to display special characters in other languages, like the okina. But there's no inherent connection between Spanish or Portuguese and our citation templates. --BDD (talk) 16:48, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there is "inherent connection" between our citation templates and those Spanish or Portuguese templates which also format cites with "url=" or "doi=" or "format=" plus access-date and archive-url parameters; in fact there are over 122 other-language interwiki links to {{cite web}}, beyond just Spanish or Portuguese. -Wikid77 12:27, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Interwiki links seem like a good reason to see this as a redundancy, not an asset. --BDD (talk) 17:35, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite as subst wrapper, per 65.94.171.206. When subst'd (which a bot could do), it would replace itself with {{cite web}} with the parameter names automatically translated. Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see there are also Portuguese cite parameters "titulo" or "publicado=" or "acessodata=" with Template:Citar_web, beyond the current Spanish and Italian parameters, so a Bot should be prepared to handle those as well. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:37, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • All the bot will do is change {{cita web}} to {{subst:cita web}}. Your template will have to handle the parameter translation. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's not the point. As BDD said, and others implicitly said, you stand back and don't change it while the discussion is open. Otherwise everyone is at sixes and sevens. I could go and change it just in a second to Sonnets from the Portuguese or Port (wine) or whatever I fancied. I am sure that would be quickly deleted or reverted. Wait to get consensus. istenna shwiya, wait a little. Si Trew (talk) 12:14, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Broader consensus as subst'ing wrapper with English parameters: All those points lead to a new compromise consensus, as recommending to change for English-only users plus wp:subst'ing into {{cite web}}. As noted 4 years ago, in July 2010, if the {cita_web} template acted as an "exact copy" of the Spanish cite template, then it would be more useful. Plus now we see years of Italian cites also copied, and similar support for Norwegian, Danish and Portuguese cite templates, mixed with English parameters which show the need to support English-only parameters as well. Hence, the extra subst request, to allow wp:subst'ing as {cite_web} markup, just broadens the overall consensus to expand the redirect into a full template which allows English parameters, along with Spanish or Italian, but also handles subst'ing. So, that compromise consensus is the new plan. -Wikid77 12:27, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please explain this workflow and its results to those of us (well, me) who do not understand what substing is and how fits into the process? If someone copies and pastes a cita web template into an article, is it automatically changed to a cite web template? Is the end result a cite web template that displays English parameters? If so, that works for me, and it fits with the consensus above. If the end result is a template that uses foreign-language parameters in an article, the weight of consensus above is against it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:26, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Jonesey95: With my proposal, yes, that's what will happen. Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:45, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Updating to allow wp:subst option: I have modified Template:Cita_web/sandbox to handle the wp:subst'ing as {cite_web} markup when saved. I think that version finally meets the compromise consensus, now, as a full template which allows English parameters, along with Spanish or Italian, but also handles subst'ing. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:58, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment whatever happens here should be done to Template:Книга as well. 198.102.153.1 (talk) 17:23, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all foreign language template names and parameters. Where does it end? Soon we'll have every template in every language. Non-english parameters should not be allowed, as it makes editing impossible. Remember the "ANYONE" in out tagline? When translating an article or template, it is the translator's responsibility to properly rename and translate the template name and its parameters. What could be the defining reason not to do so? Allowing untranslated templates and parameters to exist in any form does not encourage them to be translated at all; it only encourages discussions like this. — Edokter (talk) — 10:22, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Um, these parameters are auto-translated, as in automatically changed to the English form, for anyone, plus explained in the template's doc text. The problem ends the instant the cite is saved during edit, for Italian or Spanish cites here. As for other languages, well it's been over 6 years, and we also have Portuguese, Polish, Russian and French cite templates, but the original focus was Spanish cites, while many Italian cites also use "{{cita_web}}". Note the auto-translation not only works for "anyone can edit" but also for "anyone who reads" Wikipedia, by auto-translating the cites into English format. Over the past 6 years, what we have found is users who keep inserting (valid) Spanish or Italian cites into the English articles, and so the auto-translation will just instantly change the cites into the English, wp:CS1 {cite_web} format. Plus, people who know wp:subst'ing or Bots can edit the page to store English parameters. So, beyond people who know English, the "anyone who knows Italian cites can edit" here also, and add source references. Of course, the other-stuff-could-exist argument exceeds the scope of this {cita_web} template, but the solution seems to be the same for several languages which have repeated cites, but certainly no need to support the rest of the 269 interwiki languages, which are rarely used for enwiki pages. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:23, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted 2 - Template:Cita_web[edit]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: This is largely a cosmetic relist to superficially decrease the backlog. Further comments are still appreciated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:29, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: it is harmful:
  1. It hides away the unfinished translation tasks, potentially hiding metadata away from readers.
  2. It makes editing English Wikipedia less accessible for people who don't know Spanish.
  3. Substitution would guarantee the lag between {{cite web}} and {{cita web}}, as well as es:template:cita web and {{cita web}}, making matters worse then they already are.
If rewriting parameters of {{cite web}} is so difficult that separate tool is needed, the appropriate, well-internationalized gadget would be much more helpful.
I would also salt it to make sure that it does not get recreated by someone careless. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 17:14, 5 June 2014 (UTC) (updated — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 20:41, 5 June 2014 (UTC))[reply]
    • Do you mean keep as a redirect? The two main options are to keep it as a redirect or expand to a template that translates (creating a bot or other tool that substs it has been suggested but that's a separate discussion). If it's kept it could be locked to prevent recreation of the translation template but I don't think that's needed. It's neither a heavily used template or a likely target for disruption.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 17:39, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I mean "delete this redirect and limit ability to create a page with this name to administrators only", so that every attempt at using this name would result in red link. This is the only sane option I see. Best regards. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 19:20, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a reasonable position (and there are several German-language infoboxes on English Wikipedia that also need to go that route) -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:13, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Czarkoff, about your 3 listed points:
  1. It hides, no, it auto-completes the unfinished translation tasks, by auto-translating parameters and dates into the equivalent English format for Template:Cite_web, also converting the COinS metadata into the related parameters.
  2. It makes editing English Wikipedia more accessible for people who don't know Spanish (or Italian), because they could copy any Spanish/Italian cite parameters into the English text and the results would auto-translate to English, even if the users did not speak those languages. Similarly, it is more accessible for Italian/Spanish-speaking users who can copy the cites into enwiki without knowing the English format.
  3. Substitution could be run by Bots to shorten the lag between {{cite web}} and {{cita web}}. A Bot could wp:subst all {cita_web} entries in the page within seconds, whereas a human user might require much longer to think about adapting the Spanish/Italian parameters for English format.
Because cite data rarely changes, then the auto-translated parameters could remain in the text for days/months, with Spanish/Italian keywords explained by the template's documentation; however, if needed, new parameters could be inserted/mixed in English, or any parameters could be swapped from the prior language. Beyond users who know Spanish or Italian, the {cita_web} auto-translation would assist 6 sets of users who know any combination of Spanish/Italian or English, or none of those, as other users who do not speak English could copy cites from Spanish or Italian pages and get auto-translated results in English. Because of those reasons, people have been advising to support the Spanish/Italian parameters for over 4 years, and now the compromise consensus allows using wp:subst as well. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I disagree with all of your points.
  1. This is exactly what I call "hide away". The text of target article becomes tainted with foreign-language template, which may only be edited after learning syntax of redundant foreign language template or looking it up in documentation (which will also be prone to lag). Accomodating few with making life difficult for many.
  2. Copy-pasting from other language wiki is otherwise only accessible to people with knowledge of this other language. Once citation is pasted, it becomes hard to edit because of language.
  3. When {{cite web}} is updated, the bot goes on substituting hundreds of broken templates until both the bot and the template are fixed. Recipe for disaster.
And I did not even mention the fact that citation templates should not be copy-pasted blindly, because they should fit citation style (CS1 vs CS2 vs vancouver system vs custom style), date format, etc. This template would promote careless attitude to editing and breach of style, which is alone a good reason to speedy delete it per WP:CSD#G6 on sight.
Editing English Wikipedia must not require knowledge of another language. This marginal facilitation of translators' work does not warrant the huge negative impact of breaking this principle. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 15:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Czarkoff, rather than what users must not do, the full template will handle what users actually do when they copy/paste Spanish or Italian cites into English pages, but now auto-translate those cites into typical {cite_web} results. It also allows users to translate Spanish or Italian text into English, with auto-translating the cites which were formerly left as the original incompatible parameters until much later. Let me clarify the 3 points again:
  1. The pasted cite is not "hidden" but auto-translated into English, also allowing a user or Bot to {subst:cita_web|...} to store as {cite_web}.
  2. Once a "citation is pasted" then it is not "hard to edit" because any English parameters could be inserted, or all wp:subst'ed as English.
  3. When {{cite web}} is updated, there is almost no chance to break {cita_web}, and typically, template editors update the related cite templates soon. There is no real risk of "disaster".
Other users have considered the actual usage and concluded how {cita_web} will either auto-translate or wp:subst 80 various parameters into English, to make editing much easier, not harder and not a looming "disaster" but rather simpler and faster. -Wikid77 12:44, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IDONTHEAR? OK. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 17:16, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a wrapper. A bot can simply change these to {{Cite web}} as needed, I would add this to Helpful Pixie Bot's tasks... It is useful to have these, as it enables one to work on a page much more simply and quickly. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 11:09, 11 June 2014 (UTC).
See also [Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2010_July_18#Template:Cita_web previous discussion] which covered the same ground in many fewer words, and was closed "keep". All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC).
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.

Wikipedia:Annoying users[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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 22:54, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Annoying behaviour is not necessarily bad behaviour, thus this redirect is outright misleading. Launchballer 11:00, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: the idea behind this redirect appears to be that WP:RFCC more annoys users then accomplishs the task, which is quite popular opinion. Consider it WP:HUMOUR. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 17:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Violates WP:CIVIL when used in reference to users who are not qualified to edit Wikipedia. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weal delete, but not because it isn't useful. (It serves its intended purpose, especially for new users and IPs who need to report other users' conduct, but would have no idea about the name of the target page.) An editor could use this term for some sort of essay on "How to annoy users". In effect, the search term is ambiguous. Steel1943 (talk) 00:59, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete An unfunny, inaccurate, non-obvious and potentially offensive label. Someone coming across it might click it to see where it goes but it's not a term you'd think of when looking for WP:RFCC. Actually using in a discussion is borderline incivility, only borderline as it's not obviously aimed at any particular editor (i.e. it might be even worse if e.g. someone uses it to say "I might take you there").--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 01:51, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It isn't funny and as the nominator says is misleading. What it might be is irritating and uncivil. Dougweller (talk) 07:58, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - See the previous discussion. This is an early name of the page it redirects to, and no one wants to put anything else at this title. Anyone wanting to know what to do about "annoying users" may benefit from this redirect. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:04, 18 June 2014 (UTC).
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_June_5&oldid=1085561704"