Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 January 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 30[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 30, 2011

Curmudgeon[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 soft redirect to Wikitonary. Thryduulf (talk) 22:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - implausible redirect. Slightsmile (talk) 20:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete but not because it's implausible. "Curmudgeon" is a song on the album "With the Lights Out". I suppose a redirect would be better than yet another non-notable song article. In this case, however, the inbound links and the common usage are to the definition of a "grumpy man" and not to this song. (As a side note, I will start repointing the inbound links to the Wiktionary entry.) Rossami (talk) 02:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget as soft redirect to Wiktionary. This is a commonly used word that someone might look up on Wikipedia. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 13:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • {{wi}}-ify per Ten Pound Hammer. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Single entry DAB with wiktionary box. Rich Farmbrough, 23:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

[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 (and fix). Ruslik_Zero 14:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - useless bot-generated redirect. Really should never have been created in the first place since the target should have been moved to 365gay News a year before the redirect was generated. Now a double redirect following the article move. I Want My GayTV (talk) 05:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fix double-redirect and keep This is a redirect from an alternative capitalisation of a long-standing article title. It's doing no harm and will continue to benefit those who look for the article at it's old title. Thryduulf (talk) 13:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fix double-redirect and keep --Brest (talk) 14:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If entering cBS nEwS O or any other crazy-quilt mix of caps and lower-case leads to CBS News on Logo what is the point of maintaining this specific configuration? Alternate capitalizations may have made sense before auto-suggest and may possibly still make sense in cases where there are legitimate article titles that differ only in punctuation but otherwise they don't. I Want My GayTV (talk) 16:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • But actualy it is not case for this particular redirection, as you can see, people don't like to much to mix caps and lower-case.--Brest (talk) 17:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The idea of bot-generated redirects seems to me to be a truly awful idea. But this one is a reasonable capitalization variant, one of the leading uses for redirects. To I Want My's question above, yes the embedded search engine is case insensitive. But redirects do far more than merely support the search engine. Many other forms of navigation to articles are case-sensitive. We should not assume that just because we use the search engine that other readers all do the same. Rossami (talk) 20:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

13 Април[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 all. English Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Ruslik_Zero 19:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects from Macedonian language titles for topics that have nothing to do with Macedonia, all created by User:Brest. I've omitted from this list the 21 articles created in the same run that at first glance have some vague possibility of having something to do with Macedonia (region). Anomie⚔ 04:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-arbitrary break[edit]
  • Keep As long as we don't allow bot creation of redirects, redirects are useful to someone or they wouldn't have been created. Redirects are cheap and if we allow "foreign" as a deletion criteria how do we protect the really important redirects such as Wien? ϢereSpielChequers 10:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • These were not created for being useful, rather to create examples (quoting Brest "I created these redirects just for testing purposes"). See also Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/brest-bot. Terms like Wien are safe, because they are not just foreign translations but also notable variations likely to be searched for. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • They are created just for testing purposes, but it dosn't mean they are not useful.--Brest (talk) 14:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • We can protect "really important" foreign-language redirects with a simple rule that the foreign language must have a connection to the topic (the necessary strength of that connection would need to be discussed elsewhere); this has already been suggested several times above. So Wien would be ok since German is the official language of Austria, and a case could be made for Dunaj, Beč, and Bécs because those are "recognized regional languages" in Austria (although "which region?" could be asked), but 維也納, ویانا, or Виена (for example) would not be needed as there is no connection with Chinese, Urdu, Macedonian, or Bulgarian. Anomie⚔ 12:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your simple rule is unusable and is not universal. What about Frédéric Chopin? You say it is usable to have redirects like Fryderyk Chopin because he has some connection with Poland, but it is not usable to have redirects like Фредерик Шопен, 弗雷德里克·肖邦, just because he was not Macedonian, Bulgarian, Chinese or Mongolian? But Chopin belongs to all and he is important to all of us.--Brest (talk) 14:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Really important is a much higher bar than useful. As redirects are cheap I would suggest that "really important" is too high a test. I prefer the test of "sufficiently useful that someone has bothered to manually create them". Working out why someone finds each individual redirect useful is probably too complex to be worthwhile doing. ϢereSpielChequers 14:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think that "sufficiently useful that someone has bothered to manually create them" seems like a very sensible starting point, and in most cases sufficient to keep them. However I don't think it passes muster as a reason to keep every such redirect. I'm thinking of cases where the foreign language term is not a very good match for the concept the article is about, but where there is nothing better to retarget to. Unless the term is encyclopaedically notable, explaining the nuances of foreign language terms/concepts is a job that Wiktionary does much better than we can here. Thryduulf (talk) 15:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • IMO, "someone manually created the redirect" is far too low of a bar. For one, there are reasons for someone to create a redirect other than that they find it sufficiently useful. For example, they could mistakenly believe others would find it sufficiently useful (this resembles the Abilene paradox), they could believe that the redirect "should" exist even if not useful, they could be suffering from editcountitis, or they could be falsely claiming that they find these redirects useful to prove a point. And even if they are completely sincere, there is still the question of whether the fact that one single person (or even a small group of people) finds a redirect useful is really sufficient reason to keep that redirect. Anomie⚔ 17:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • I've no objection to judicious pruning or amendment of redirects that have been specifically identified as incorrect or inappropriate, I just think that "sufficiently useful that someone has bothered to manually create them" should be the default position. But to pick up on Anomie's point about editcountitis, I've no objection to throttling their creation - if someone is creating redirects in a bot like manner I would question whether they have considered each individually and deemed them useful. ϢereSpielChequers 17:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • If we assume that, ירושלים to Jerusalem and חיפה to Haifa, are useful manually created redirections, because is related to Israel according to Anomie, then also we can assume that any other apropriate redirection for city in Category:Cities in Israel is useful. For users there is no difference between manualy created and bot created redirection. Some one believe that the redirect "should not" exist even is useful, if redirect from foreign language and is not manually created, first simptom of Adminitis. --Brest (talk) 23:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent)
I've suggested at the bot request page linked above and at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion that there are only two cases where bots should create foreign-language redirects - (1) for the official name(s) of settlements/geographical entities in the official language(s) spoken in that place, iff those names are included in the first paragraph of the target article (eg. دار السلام to Dar es Salaam). 2) For the name(s) of people in the language(s) they speak, iff those names are included in the first paragraph of the target article (e.g. Мария Шарапова to Maria Sharapova). Anything else can be created manually of course. Given that there are at least three concurrent discussions about foreign redirects at the moment, perhaps we should have an RfC or other centralised discussion? Thryduulf (talk) 13:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC) The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.[reply]

Sonalee Kulkarni[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Redirect turned into article. All done. Non-admin closure. — This, that, and the other (talk) 00:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See discussion at Talk:Natarang SPat talk 04:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is confusion due to two actresses with the same name. The redirect should be replaced with User:SPat/Sonalee Kulkarni. SPat talk 05:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If I understand you correctly you want to create and article on a person called "Sonalee Kulkarni". In that case I'll just be WP:BOLD and make the redirect a page. You can then just copy your text into Sonalee Kulkarni. Travelbird (talk) 11:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Copy pasted content to Sonalee Kulkarni. Thanks for the comment. SPat talk 11:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

METAL DISINTEGRATION[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 repointed to harmonize with the non-all-caps version. SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IT'S IN ALL CAPS so it doesn't follow proper naming convention. Further, nothing links here. If such a redirect really needs to exist, it should exist in the proper capitalization. — Timneu22 · talk 03:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep to preserve attribution. If you look at the redirect's history then you'll see the edit summary clearly stating that content is being merged. In these circumstances we don't delete the redriect so the edit history is preserved. It should be tagged as an unprintworthy redirect (as it is) which will exclude it from the search dropdown. Thryduulf (talk) 13:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Makes no sense. IT IS IN ALL CAPS. Move this to the correct capitalization and then delete this. — Timneu22 · talk 19:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, I just moved it to the correct caps. It's now a double redirect so it will be fixed soon. — Timneu22 · talk 19:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep to preserve attribution history (now at both capitalizations). The existence of a redirect is not an endorsement of a title and a redirect is not required to comply with the naming conventions normal to an article. This one is doing no harm and creating no evident confusion. It should, perhaps, be tagged with {{unprintworthy}}, though. Rossami (talk) 20:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no history to preserve! http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=METAL_DISINTEGRATION&action=history. Please, let's use some common sense here. We just do not need an all-caps redirect for no reason. — Timneu22 · talk 22:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Pagemoves count as history. The fact that the history is copied somewhere else mitigates but does not eliminate the value of leaving the redirect behind. Please assume good faith that the rest of us both understand common sense and understand the value of history and the multiple purposes of redirects. Please take a moment to read Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#When should we delete a redirect?. Being "unneeded" is not a reason to delete a redirect. Rossami (talk) 03:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I do know, and I know when "unneeded" is a reason to delete, and that is now. Shall I go create lots of caps redirects like BABE RUTH and CHICAGO, ILLINOIS and MACROECONOMICS? — Timneu22 · talk 10:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • "Unneeded is never a reason to delete all by itself. That does not mean that we should preemptively create new redirects (which is what you are now saying) but it does mean that once created in good faith, the right answer is to leave non-harmful redirects alone. Rossami (talk) 14:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • There is already a valid redirect that is properly named. I find this discussion unbelievable. Frankly the redirect could be deletable under r3. — Timneu22 · talk 14:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Further, the redirect, which was once an article, was indeed created in good faith, but that's not enough: it was created incorrectly, and it has now been fixed. So why have two redirects? Just because a good-faith A7 article was created doesn't mean that CSD shouldn't be used. Good faith doesn't overrule common sense or naming convention guidelines. — Timneu22 · talk 14:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete now that the attribution problem is fixed. With the exception of the ALL CAPS article and a few others (i.e. LASER redirecting to laser, because laser is an acronym), ALL CAPS REDIRECTS are not particularly helpful; if anything, they're distracting when they show up in the search box while typing. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • As has already been mentioned upthread, it is possible to remove these redirects from the search box drop-down list. I would support doing this by default for redirects from alternative spellings (although there are obviously cases where they probably should be seen), if only to stop this reason being given n support of deletion of redirects. The search box is not the only way that people navigate Wikipedia and alternative capitalisation redirects benefit those people who use case sensitive searching methods. Thryduulf (talk) 23:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • But why keep two redirects when one of them is absolutely unneeded? There's just no justification for keeping the all-caps redirect. — Timneu22 · talk 11:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • What is the justification for deleting something contains attribution history, is potentially useful for some users who use case sensitive searches and does no harm? I repeat "unnecessary" is not a reason to delete a redirect. Thryduulf (talk)
          • You're just wrong: it has no history, and it is not potentially useful. The correct capitalization redirect has the history and is useful. Again, why not create these meaningless redirects, too: BABE RUTH and CHICAGO, ILLINOIS and MACROECONOMICS. — Timneu22 · talk 20:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • A record of a page move is useful history (as has been explained above). Similarly I've explained previously how this is useful for people who search/browse using case sensitive methods and for people who have linked to it externally. Rossami explained upthread that just because we should keep this doesn't mean we should preemptively create similar ones. As your response to these reasoned arguments is "you're just wrong", I don't know how to respond further other than to point you back to those arguments and point out once more that neither being "unnecessary" nor proclaiming those on the other side of a debate are "just wrong" are reasons to delete a redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 21:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • This debate is so ridiculous that why "just wrong" is the most I can do. Holy shit. Any "keep" arguments for this seem absolutely unreasonable and I've seen no sane arguments in favor of it. The redirect: 1) is a double redirect 2) would never be accessed in a search or otherwisie 3) does not have history associated with it. So why are you keeping it? — Timneu22 · talk 14:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • 1) It should obviously be retargetted, but that does not require deletion. 2) It probably wont get accidentally linked to internally on Wikipedia, but that does not mean it will never be linked to from external sites, found in search results (internal or external to the English Wikipedia) - there are many different ways that people find and access Wikipedia content, some are case insensitive some are case sensitive. ("Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do."), 3) It does have history associated with it - it has the history of the page move, which is more significant than some textual changes to articles. The keep arguments are "1. It's useful", "2. It's doing no harm" and "3. It's preserving attribution history". The onus though is on those wanting to delete a redirect to show why deleting it will improve the encyclopaedia. I think we're just going to have to see whether the closing administrator finds these arguments more or less convincing that "I don't like it", "The existence of another redirect makes this one unnecessary" and "You're just wrong". Thryduulf (talk) 15:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No use having these all-caps redirects floating around. They're not needed, as others have stated above. — This, that, and the other (talk) 00:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • And as also been said, there is a use in having this redirect and "not needed" is not a reason to delete a redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 03:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think it is best to stop hoarding garbage. Ruslik_Zero 14:35, 12 February 2011 (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/2011_January_30&oldid=1140250443"