Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 April 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 2[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 2, 2016.

Peter Atencio[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 converted to article by User:Captain Assassin! (thanks!) (non-admin closure) by Si Trew (talk) 03:19, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per wp:redlink, is mentioned many times on the wiki and could easily have an article... Beerest 2 Talk page 23:06, 2 April 2016 (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.

Pashtun (version 2)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 April 10#Pashtun (version 2)

User:Trekie9001/Duplekita[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. (non-admin closure) — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 06:30, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Godsy has found a new way to disrupt Wikipedia by creating redirects from other user spaces to previously deleted articles they are getting restored into draft space. These are totally unnecessary and disruptive cross name space redirects. Delete. Legacypac (talk) 21:47, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep - This redirect will allow the user to find the content they were working on should they return. This content was in the article namespace and deleted because of the nominator's inappropriate move (the content was deleted so it was not suitable for the mainspace). My actions were not disruptive; as to whether this nomination or your actions were is up to others to decide.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 22:02, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No good reason to delete, and as Godsy points out, several reasons not to. Creating these redirects is not "disruptive" but "useful" to the likely-inexperienced editor who made the draft and wouldn't know how to find it if it was gone. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:46, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Why was it moved from the user's namespace in the first place? If a user puts something into "their" user space, why would they want it moved by someone else into main or Draft:? Si Trew (talk) 02:08, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Si Trew: They probably wouldn't want it moved. The nominator has been doing large amounts of these types of moves since the beginning of the year, you can see them and the reasons given here. The reason gieven behind this move specifically in the move summary was "stale draft that appears notable, covered by cbc in Canada", which can be conveniently viewed here.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 02:23, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, move it back then without creating a redirect. While nothing on Wikipedia is "personal" or "private", there's little point in allowing – encouraging – people to edit drafts in "their" user space if they are then going to be hoist into the more-public draft space. It's useful to have this informal triage of user (first or early draft) -> draft (second or late draft) -> main. Regardless of ownership, I would be less than gruntled if someone moved "my" draft from "my" user space. The question is: how did Legacypac find this draft in the user's space? Presumably through a search or a link. In which case, anyone else can find it in the same way, and there was no need to move it. Si Trew (talk) 02:37, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • And it would be pointless to argue "some users won't know how to search in user space, this makes them more visible". The whole point is to keep them out of sight of the unwary or uninterested until they are ready. If that's never, then so be it. If it requires an expert search, all the better. Si Trew (talk) 02:58, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move it back to user space without leaving a redirect. I don't think it's anyone's business to move drafts (or anything else) out of another user's user space. While nothing is owned on Wikipedia, there is a certain convention that pages under a user's name are under their primary control. @Legacypac: have I got this wrong, because it seems absurd to move the article, and then claim that the redirect left behind is disruptive (why is the recreation more disruptive than moving the page, leaving a redirect?) I don't understand the "previously deleted articles" bit. The articles were not, as far as I can see, deleted – they were moved; the redirects were deleted. Have I missed something? Si Trew (talk) 02:44, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Article was moved because I thought it was notable. User:Bearcat obviously has a better grasp of [WP:NMUSIC]] amd how CBC works. Therefore I supported the deletion. The redirect under discussion here was not created by the move to main, it was created by Godsy in another user's space, which flies in the face of their position against touching userspace. Legacypac (talk) 02:35, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Si Trew: I presume Legacypac found it through Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts/Stale drafts. This is a rather complex issue: Legacypac moved User:Trekie9001/Duplekita to Duplekita, and it was nominated for deletion there Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duplekita and subsequently deleted. If content moved from the userspace to the mainspace is nominated for deletion and subsequently deleted, it clearly wasn't suitable for the mainspace. Legacypac actually !voted "Delete per nom, thanks for the good analysis" in the discussion (this among other things leads me to further question their move of the page). MfD would have been the proper forum for a deletion discussion as Legacypac's move was inappropriate. AfD has higher standards than MfD, as they govern different namespaces, and what content can exist in each namespace varies per policies and guidelines. Hence, I requested the administrator that deleted the content restore it User talk:Ymblanter#Duplekita and they chose to restore it to the draft namespace. So, simply moving it back to the userspace becomes rather complicated. But if that is what community consensus decides here, I don't see a problem with it. Best Regards,—Godsy(TALKCONT) 02:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, I meant move it back to user space (not main space). I may not have made that clear. Si Trew (talk) 03:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I understood what you meant, and I think your suggestion is reasonable. I've clarified my reply a bit above. Just tried to convey the circumstances surrounding this discussion.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:25, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Godsy: I've essentially given my stance about "hard to find" above in what was not quite an {{ec}}. I don't really see why, if the administrator restored it into a different place from that suggested, we can't just move it back to where it was or very near it (i.e. into the user's space, at least). It seems rather like breaking and entering someone's house to borrow a refrigerator but leaving a note where they might find it: better to return the fridge or at least, leave it outside the door.
      • But if the consensus is no longer to encourage users to create drafts in "their" user space, we should say so more clearly. Si Trew (talk) 03:08, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • The remedy would seem to be not to put {{userspace draft}} on a page in user space, then the bot won't know about it. I never did anyway. Never even knew it existed. Si Trew (talk) 04:32, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Users don't WP:OWN userspace. Every contribution is released for others to edit freely which includes moving it. I believe this page predates Draft space which is the preferred location for drafts now and moves from user to draft space are common. This user is long gone as well. Legacypac (talk) 19:17, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I know users don't own userspace (or anything else), but I think there iis a reasonable expectation that if someone is expected to take responsibility for their edits then they shouldn't have that hoist away from. If the user is "long gone", delete the user annd anything under the user's name. I just don't agree áát all with moving these things without discussion. Si Trew (talk) 20:20, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the redirect. Redirects from article-space to userspace are prohibited because they create confusion among readers who may not notice that they're no longer in the article-space. Redirects going the other way create no such confusion and are very commonly used for a number of reasons. The accusation that this pagemove was "disruptive" is a failure to assume good faith and is both inappropriate and irrelevant to this discussion. The argument over whether the pagemove should be undone is an interesting one that I need to think on more. No opinion on that yet. Rossami (talk) 06:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a bookmark to let the draft's creator know where their draft went. Steel1943 (talk) 20:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I was going to say what Steel1943 said. In fact, I would tag it {{R from move}}, as it effectively is one. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:26, 4 April 2016 (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.

Easy scale[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. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 16:41, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot fathom why this redirect exists. ESI is not "Easy" jps (talk) 11:56, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • You could pronounce it that way, though. It's a bolded term in the target article's lead sentence. - Eureka Lott 14:26, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're right, but I cannot find a source that calls it that which is not related to Wikipedia. jps (talk) 16:09, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, that's not how WP:RS works. They're not academic journals, but that doesn't make them self-published sources. That's a false dichotomy. - Eureka Lott 02:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A real alternative name for this. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:49, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please provide your favorite source for this. jps (talk) 05:37, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There was a documentary from NOVA that I cited here multiple times for different pages (I just cant remember the name of the documentary) that referred to the ESI as the "Easy Scale". "Easy Scale" is an alternative name for ESI and it says it on the first line of the Earth Similarity Index. Davidbuddy9 Talk  02:08, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - While the term is frustratingly vague, that "easy scale" relates to the aforementioned planetary habitability measurement is something that I do see out there used by reliable, regular newsy sources and not just, say, various personal blogs. Here's an example from the Voice of America, which I think would be fairly considered right up there alongside BBC News and the Washington Post. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 12:23, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until an actual reason for deletion is given. Redirects are deliberately not held to the same standards of sourcing as article content. Rossami (talk) 06:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - while my search results heavily favour guitar instruction websites ("learn this easy scale!" etc) none of the various scales mentioned is definitively known as "easy". The current target does seem to be the only thing that is. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:24, 4 April 2016 (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.

Standard Mainland Mandarin[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. --BDD (talk) 20:35, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These have never targeted Mandarin Chinese, but perhaps are somewhat WP:XY, since we have that as well as Standard Chinese. See yesterday's log for a bunch of others that were bot-retargetd on 31 March from Mandarin Chinese to Standard Chinese. Si Trew (talk) 00:03, 2 April 2016 (UTC) Si Trew (talk) 00:03, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Standard Mandarin Chinese (language). Keep the other two targeted to Standard Chinese. —  AjaxSmack  13:34, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per AjaxSmack -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 03:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Standard Mandarin Chinese (language) but I feel inclined to also keep the rest given that the WP:XY problem doesn't seem that large... I think pretty much everyone searching this is specifically interested in the modern, standard Mandarin. If there's ambiguity, we can modify the targeted page a bit. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 12:13, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. I could see an argument to retarget to Mandarin Chinese, especially since that page is more directly hat-noted (the hat-note on Standard Chinese passes first through a disambiguation stub), but the use of "Standard" in the titles above suggests that the reader is more likely to be looking for the current language. No good reason to delete the title with the "(language)" suffix. Many of our articles about languages follow that naming convention as a disambiguation aid and a reader new to the project might plausibly expect this title to follow the same convention. Rossami (talk) 06:42, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Standard Mainland Mandarin" and "Standard Mandarin" as both clearly refer to the standard spoken language, which is what "Standard Chinese" discusses. As a fluent Chinese user with some training in Chinese linguistics, I don't see any concern with ambiguity. In English-language discourse, "Mandarin" almost never refers to the written language, preferring "standard [written] Chinese" in those contexts. Neutral on "Standard Mandarin Chinese (language)" as the superfluous disambiguation makes it utterly useless but the redirect isn't wrong or harmful. Deryck C. 17:07, 4 April 2016 (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/2016_April_2&oldid=1037903508"