Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 April 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 15[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 15, 2010

吉林市[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 PROCEDURAL CLOSE. Discussion moved to DRV. Frazzydee|✍ 05:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Restore where applicable
Since Uther refuses to listen to me, I shall voice my complaint here. He has been off a rampage in deleting many, if not the majority of, the re-directs from Chinese (both simplified and Traditional) that I have created. Since the vast majority of these re-directs match up directly with their article titles (i.e. 吉林市 is Jilin City), they are not inaccurate. Furthermore, foreign-language re-directs are not mentioned under the 'reasons for deleting' [[WP:REDIRECT#When should we delete a direct?|subsection] of WP:REDIRECT. They also satisfy the requirements for re-directs from foreign language. I do not have the patience to reverse all of Uther's pernicious deletions, so I ask another admin to do so. In the mean time, I will see whether other users create more Chinese re-directs. 华钢琴49 (TALK) 03:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see no error here. There is no expectation that someone will stumble onto the English language Wikipedia and type in a non-Roman character set to search for an article. "Reasons for deleting" is not an exhaustive list. Further, WP:FORRED is an essay, nowhere near a commandment, and given the examples of what to keep and what not, I feel my deletions have been in keeping with the spirit if not the letter of the essay. I await assessment here before continuing. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
the error is that there is a province named Jilin, as well as a city. There currently is a re-direct as follows: 吉林 ---> Jilin (the province). but you deleted the one for the city. 'no expectation that someone will stumble onto the English language Wikipedia and type in a non-Roman character set to search for an article.' did you look at the talk page? several people have commented specifically on non-Roman scripts; they have said that if they 'stumble' on a character representation somewhere (doesn't have to be on WIKI), then they would like to search it in the box and be able to re-directed. Obviously, if they knew how to 'type in a non-Roman character set to search for an article', then they would probably know the romanisation (pinyin is a major input method for Chinese), and would just go directly put the romanisation in; however, that fails in some cases, e.g. Hohhot (Huhehaote, without tone marks). I will allow a compromise with the 朝阳区 and 东方红, but refuse to compromise with the hundreds, if not thousands, of re-directs from non-Roman scripts. but thank you for pausing before continuing on your campaign. 华钢琴49 (TALK) 04:55, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
should we move this discussion elsewhere? this discussion is not limited to Jilin City, but rather to the thousands of non-Roman re-direcs that are potentially at risk. 华钢琴49 (TALK) 04:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You might want an RfC, but these have been discussed at RfD before, IIRC. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 05:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • RESTORE/KEEP These seem to have usually been kept at RfD, so deleting it would not be uncontroversial housekeeping. And I don't see why someone would not copy-paste some non-English word into wikipedia to search for it. It seems to be a rather obvious and likely thing to do. Further, Chinese named things usually have multiple romanizations, so it may be easier to search for it from the Chinese character name in the first place. We even have a disambiguation task force for Chinese lettering, WP:CJKV! The reasoning also fails "Noncriteria #16". 70.29.208.247 (talk) 04:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Restore as a valid redirect for the page mentioned. This has already been discussed and redirects are cheap, so there is no valid reason to delete them. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Despite being an experienced English Wikipedia contributor (4 years, 5 GAs) who is fairly fluent in English, I (a Chinese Singaporean) occasionally conduct searches in Chinese. For example, last week, I was looking for an article about a Mandopop singer and I knew her Chinese name, but not her name in English. I believe many other less experienced users who are not native speakers of English may find such redirects useful. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 10:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as long as the only reason for deleting them is a pedantic "this is English wikipedia". As a sidenote, it is quite easy to make up a few examples where knowledge of the pinyin transliteration of a group of characters won't help you much, for example 陝西 or names like 欧阳修. It gets more complicated when you are looking up stuff outside the PRC, even for Chinese people like 韩瑞生. Yaan (talk) 17:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close; list at WP:DRV. This is essentially a contest of a deletion, and the deleting admin stated his/her justification here already. If the deletion is felt to be improper, RfD is not the forum for discussion. DRV is. B.Wind (talk) 18:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope such a procedural close does not result in our Keep !votes being disregarded. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 02:17, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Rather than a close, it should probably be "moved" across, with a break between where the RFD ends and the DRV begins. --Taelus (talk) 15:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

T:tdyk[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 for deletion. In truth, I find the delete !votes to be stronger - not only would this otherwise meet WP:CSD#R2, which applies to redirects from mainspace (which this is) to template talk, but yes, we have a very strong convention for all-caps redirects. Still, there are clearly exceptions to every rule, T:TDYK being among them, and the point that as long as this isn't actually used in main/talk space there won't be confusion is very well made. On top of that, after two weeks a number of editors have said they find this definitely useful. Not only should we never encourage the use of caps lock on the internet, but more to the point it's not our prerogative to tell others how to search. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Would be a CSD-R2, but has been recreated by a respected editor following a prior deletion. TB (talk) 22:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for posting this here. I created the redirect, as i found that writing t:tdyk did not work in mention by me at another editor's talk page. User talk:Nyttend shows up in the "what links here". I am not that familiar with Redirect guidelines. Looking up CSD R2, however, i don't understand how wp:CSD R2 would apply. If i am finding the right place, that guideline is about "R2. Redirects from the article namespace, to any other namespace except the Category:, Template:, Wikipedia:, Help: and Portal: namespaces." This link was a link from a Talk page to the DYK proposal / discussion area. It is valid to write T:TDYK in a Talk page; this is just the lowercase version of the valid shortcut T:TDYK.
So, Keep. I imagine it would occasionally get use; i for one am more likely to try lowercase versions of shortcuts first, as the shortcuts i use work that way. Sure, the redirect should not be invoked from wikipedia mainspace. --doncram (talk) 22:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The intent behind limiting redirects (and more generally any links) from the main namespace to other 'internal' namespaces is to limit the exposure of the average wikipedia reader to the behind-the-scenes activity of its editors. User, project and talk pages are not encyclopaedia articles, and we don't to ever give the impression that they are. See Wikipedia:Cross-namespace_redirects. - TB (talk) 07:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've never had problems with using lower-case redirects. t:dyk doesn't exist, but if you type that into the search box, it automatically redirects through T:DYK. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 22:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which tends to make you assume that typing t:dyk in discussion, like here, will work too. it doesn't work, if u don't have the lowercase redirect setup, as is currently the case for t:tdyk.
To quote from Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects (thanks for pointing to that): "Redirects which are used exclusively on User, Talk and other project pages do not create confusion. Readers of the article-space only (whether at Wikipedia or through a mirror which only copies our article-space) will never fall into this "pipework" because these "cracks" (or more accurately, "access ports") are only being left in the maintenance corridors." Other "pro" items there are relevant too, and the "anti" items don't have traction about this one, IMHO.
I really don't see what the problem is. It is not a cross-namespace redirect in any bad way. It is pointing to where DYK nominations are being made and discussed, and it is (mildly) useful in being able to refer an editor to there. If T:TDYK is okay policy-wise then surely the other "spelling" t:tdyk is okay. Indeed lowercase is okay if u type it in at the search box, so it is already "partly okay".
I don't really care, it served my purpose already in the reference i made at Nyttend's page. What was discussed in the previous deletion process about this, if there was one, though? Someone said this was once deleted before. Could someone link to the previous discussion? It seems more confusing to editors to enforce a weird ban on lowercase version of a very commonly used shortcut. More confusion than it is worth to discuss at all, just let it be, is my opinion. --doncram (talk) 18:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From the deletion log: "20:27, 4 February 2009 User:Happy-melon deleted "T:tdyk" ‎ (redirect already exists as T:TDYK; no need for both versions; ajax-search will still find the target, and shortcut convention is for capitals anyway.)". Possibly also of note is that, on the deleted versison, User:MBisanz added Template:Go away to it on November 2008, at 02:29. - TB (talk) 07:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I interpret that to mean that lowercase version was in use for a while, and that MBisanz is one editor who wanted to protect it, telling other editors to "go away" rather than focusing on deleting this one. Also, this is a bit of a stretch, perhaps, but the lowercase shortcut could well have been referred to many times in Talk pages in ways that are not clear now. But note the T:tdyk page itself is one that is not usually archived. So while there are few/no hits in "what links here" currently, it could conceivably be the case that browing in past versions of talk pages there will be links to t:tdyk that will be invalidated. Again, my point of view is that having the lowercase shortcut in this case and others is a convenience and costs nothing. --doncram (talk) 15:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I use this a lot. --Bermicourt (talk) 21:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No you don't :). There is a widey used upper-case version of the same shortcut, this is a recently reintroduced alternate shortcut - TB (talk) 07:28, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes I do! And I prefer the lower case version. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you use it in the search box, the existance of a redirect at T:TDYK is enough to get you to the right page. Jafeluv (talk) 16:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the previous deletion summary from Happy-melon (talk · contribs): "redirect already exists as T:TDYK; no need for both versions; ajax-search will still find the target, and shortcut convention is for capitals anyway." Cunard (talk) 02:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. By convention shortcuts are always in upper case, and it doesn't strike me as unreasonable to require editors to type a series of four letters in upper rather than lowercase, doubly so when it's likely they've had to engage the caps lock and/or shift keys for the immediately preceding "T:". As others have pointed out, there is no need to duplicate the existing T:TDYK for search purposes. Thryduulf (talk) 16:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they can in fact type all in lower-case, as in t:tdyk, so one premise of that comment is incorrect. --doncram (talk) 17:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I !voted above, but simply, if it is valid to type T:TDYK anywhere, and to type t:tdyk in the search box, why should it not be valid to type t:tdyk in a talk page when referring to the DYK page? And, some of the arguments against "cross-name space" redirects are about accidentally misleading readers/editors about fact they're going across namespaces. Here, with the "t:" in the name, that is not a problem. It is not a "dangerous" one like "DYK nominations" would be, if that was a redirect to T:TDYK. There is no harm, and some help, in having this redirect exist. --doncram (talk) 17:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If one were to type "tdyk" into the Wikipedia search box, the first entry to ome back would be T:tdyk - it is ranked highly because it is in the main namespace. The first entry related to encyclopaedic content (a reference to the Black Sabbath song "The Devil You Know") is pushed down to second place. There was some disucssion of flagging articles to ensure they are ignored (or at least downgraded in importance) by search engines, but I don't beleive it was ever implemented. - TB (talk) 07:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I use this regularly. Pyrrhus16 21:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Indeed, I too, use this quite often. -- Cirt (talk) 22:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Maria Boren[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. Killiondude (talk) 06:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this redirect should be deleted. Maria Boren may be or may become notable enough for an article. Tim Ross (talk) 20:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Is the argument here that's she's not sufficiently notable for a redirect, or that she's too notable and deserves a whole article? If it's the former, I disagree; if it's the latter, the redirect can be turned into an article whenever anyone bothers to replace "#REDIRECT ..." with some text. (FWIW, my snap judgment is that she is probably not sufficiently notable for a standalone article, in keeping with general consensus about reality show contestants.)  Glenfarclas  (talk) 11:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See "Reasons for deleting" at WP:RFD#DELETE: "If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains little information on the subject. In these cases, it is better that the target article contain a redlink pointing back to the redirect." That seems to be the situation here. Tim Ross (talk)
I'm aware of that; however, I think the target article contains sufficient information, in context, about Maria Boren that that provision doesn't apply. It's also worth noting that if this redirect is deleted, the target still won't contain any redlinks pointing to it. I guess someone can add them in.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 09:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct about the redlink in a literal sense, Glenfarclas, although note that Maria Boren is now bluelinked at North Florida Christian High School, List of people from Virginia, List of people from Hampton Roads, and Pensacola Christian College - all of which would be better with redlinks in my opinion. Tim Ross (talk)
  • Keep - Ms. Boren's "notability" is not independent of the television show. Should she (someday) meet the WP:BIO bar, the redirect can be easily overwritten with a standalone article. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 14:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Rinoa[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. Band article has since been deleted. Killiondude (talk) 06:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Makes it difficult (or at least more of a hindrance) when searching for the UK Band of the same name. Propose either deletion of redirect or retarget redirect to a disambiguation page. Lordmas (talk) 08:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dabify 70.29.208.247 (talk) 05:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait a few days before doing anything - the UK band's article is under prod as the group's debut album was released 15 April 2010... in other words, they haven't had time to establish WP:BAND yet. B.Wind (talk) 01:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; band's article has gone bye-bye.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 19:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - no need for a disambiguation as the band's article is now deleted. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

"Hilda Madsen"[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy per R3. Jafeluv (talk) 10:06, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects consisting of only the article title surrounded in quotes have been deleted per past RfD consensus. –Grondemar 00:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per past consensus and uselessness of such redirect.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 11:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as an improbable typo of a person's name. Tagged. B.Wind (talk) 01:28, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2010_April_15&oldid=1148048096"