Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 17[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 17, 2019.

Restyling[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 28#Restyling

Toneladas[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 Tonelada. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 11:18, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

although "tonelada" is Spanish for tonne, "tonelada" (or its plural "toneladas") are meaningless in English. The word is never mentioned in the article, therefore, there is no reason to be redirected there. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 05:09, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of which apply as the word is used in English. And please check this before issuing redirect deletes. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:26, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@In ictu oculi: This is Redirects for Discussion not Deletion. What are you talking about? Nowhere I asked it to be deleted, but to stop the incorrect redirection as it is meaningless in English (regardless how much you are stretching the "meaningful in English"; as Largoplazo said, quotations from Spanish texts are not valid). Secondly, "Tonelada" means the same in Portuguese, and the proposed Spanish customary units is not about Spanish-language customary units but about Spaniard customary units. Furthermore we are discussing a plural form, the fact you hadn't created Tonelada yet says a lot of what you do here. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 18:28, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Then please tell the "Delete" vote below. At 07:41, 25 December 2018 I asked "How can GBook searches with "tonelada is" "tonelada was" "toneladas are" "toneladas were" be "Spanish excerpts"? So how at 18:28 can you asking the above? In ictu oculi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:36, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If he considers deletion is the best (it is a plural, not a singular) it is up to him. I checked the Gbooks. Those are hardly 50 specialized books, it makes little difference to the previous situation--that tonelada is meaningless in English. But it makes it clear you want the term to be a dictionary entry alone, as nothing at Tonne is about the Spanish name. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 19:41, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Also, regarding comments above, it isn't a Spanish weight. It's the Spanish word for the metric ton(ne). The word had a life before metricization—just like the word ton(ne) did. In English contexts, there isn't any particular connection between the Spanish word for the ton and the amount of weight that was considered a "ton" at any time during history. There's no reason to suppose that in commerce between England and Spain 500 years ago, the English speakers in a transaction would have said "tonne", and not "tonelada", any time they were referring to the same unit of measure as the Spaniards were calling a "tonelada" in the context of the transaction. Even if they weren't the same measure, I suspect that English speakers would referred to the Spanish measure as "Spanish tonnes". 20:49, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, a search here for "tonelada" shows that it appears almost exclusively (a) within Spanish or Portuguese excerpts, (b) within direct quotations, (c) in articles about the units of measure of specific countries, and (d) in song titles, people's names, etc. Largoplazo (talk) 20:53, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question: How can GBook searches with "tonelada is" "tonelada was" "toneladas are" "toneladas were" be "Spanish excerpts"? Is/was/are/were are English. And yes obviously "in articles about the units of measure of specific countries" because the tonelada was a unit of measurement of specific countries. WP:NOTDICTIONARY means "This page in a nutshell: In Wikipedia, things are grouped into articles based on what they are, not what they are called by. In a dictionary, things are grouped by what they are called by, not what they are." It doesn't mean that measurement words punto (unit) línea pulgada pie (unit) vara paso (unit) milla (unit) legua (unit) are not encyclopaedic content and must be deleted. On that basis inch would have to be deleted. We'd also have to delete tonelada from Cuban units of measurement if we're not allowing the measurement in en.wp. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:41, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Notice the difference between "a search here" and "a GBooks search". Largoplazo (talk) 11:55, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly; Not a significant difference, and our source is WP:RS, Wikipedia is not a source. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:33, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
NB a couple of those didn't have articles/redirects so I have created them. Pulgada is now a #REDIRECT to Spanish customary units But the point is if Spanish measurement units are banned from en.wp it's more than one redirect which needs deleting, weu'll be deleting Spanish customary units and all sub articles as well. And for other countries... In ictu oculi (talk)
That may be what is motivating this delete discussion, Shakira fans, but no - doesn't mean anything of the sort, as Spanish customary units indicates. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:28, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mention at & retarget to Spanish customary units, with optional hatnote for any songs or whatever. I'll go dig up some sources tomorrow. Tonne, which refers specifically to the metric ton, clearly isn't the right target. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 00:52, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:02, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:10, 17 January 2019 (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.

ALL-CAPS with spaces redirects to Wikipedia:Protection policy[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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:47, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

{{R from shortcut}}s are traditionally supposed to have no spaces in them. For all of these, their non-space versions exist. I do not see the usefulness of these since the versions without spaces will be used, and having to maintain these redirects is unnecessarily WP:COSTLY. (All of these were created by the same editor around the same time frame.) Steel1943 (talk) 02:29, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all as harmless per WP:CHEAP. Maintenance requirements are minimal as the targets do not frequently change, links to them do not need to be corrected and they are all plausible search terms leading to the correct target so the argument these are costly doesn't hold any water at all. I tried to spot check the usage of some of them, but the pageviews API seems to be broken at the moment, but I don't see any evidence of them being problematic in the slightest and someone evidently finds them useful. Thryduulf (talk) 12:22, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:03, 17 January 2019 (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.

"Help" redirects to Help:Contents or Help:Help[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 Help:Contents. There's a lot to figure out here/below, but this does appear to be the consensus. In general, whenever an XfD discussion is underway, it's best to continue/engage in the discussion first. Moving and deleting pages, especially in multi-nom discussions, only serves to confuse and complicate matters. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:10, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's rather confusing that for one, Help:HELP targets Help:Contents instead of Help:Help, the redirect's non-caps equivalent. In any case, my primary opinion is that all of these redirects should target the same page. Steel1943 (talk) 17:03, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget all to Help:Help. Help:Contents has no useful information to justify redirecting, except links to other help pages. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 06:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no problem with all going to our main Help:Contents as H:Help is just an info page. If people are looking for help the main page should be linked as it is on our contents sidebar. Going to be bold and fix this now!!. move Help:Help to Help:About help pages and fixed the redirects with the ? and fixed targets as seen here. The last thing we want are people not familiar with our help system redirect thousands of pages to the wrong thing as mentioned above. We could close this now if User:Steel1943 is ok with me implementing hes suggestion. --Moxy (talk) 15:52, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It also seems that you removed the {{Rfd}} tags from H:? and Help:? after retargeting them both to Help:Contents. Steel1943 (talk) 17:06, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    What really should have happened is a talk at the help project over a talk here or at least a notification. The reason I was bold is because I saw the suggestion by User:Jalen Folf that would have messed up thousands of info pages and their talk pages. Best bring theses kind of things up at project pages before bring them here. --Moxy (talk) 19:17, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That comment you made regarding JalenFolf's vote would have been helpful to form consensus for this discussion prior to the page moves you performed as that comment could/can be used for determining consensus on all of this. In addition, I nominated all redirects, so this is the proper venue to bring this up first; moving pages and targets during an an active discussion fragments and breaks the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 19:28, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the proper venue, as defined at the top of this page: "Redirects for discussion (RfD) is the place where potentially problematic redirects are discussed."    — The Transhumanist   23:05, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think all (except WP:Help page which should go to Help:About help pages) should be redirected to [[Help:Contents[[ and a hatnote on the top of this page like "Several titles redirect here. For more about help pages, see Help:About help pages." PorkchopGMX (talk with me - what i've done) 12:26, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I changed my mind, i think The Transhumanist's suggestion is better. PorkchopGMX (talk with me - what i've done) 16:10, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion – The context of the help namespace is help on Wikipedia. The main help page is Help:Contents, our help starting point, so, all shortcut equivalents of the F1 key should lead there. It's where the user generally needs to go when they mean "Help me please", as it will direct the reader to more specific pages to address their specific need at the moment. Therefore, redirect all of the above to Help:Contents. Shortcuts to metahelp (help about help) are H:A and H:ABOUT.    — The Transhumanist   23:05, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:00, 17 January 2019 (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.

Sverbank[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 24#Sverbank

Philippine Americans[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 Filipino Americans. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:48, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Surely this should point to Filipino Americans instead? The current target is an anomaly compared to all other "[demonym] Americans" article titles. feminist (talk) 16:10, 17 January 2019 (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.

Maram language (Austro-Asiatic)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 30#Maram language (Austro-Asiatic)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_January_17&oldid=880956562"