Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 December 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 1[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 1, 2012

List of manga[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 Lists of manga after it moved to the main space. Ruslik_Zero 14:29, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects to 'List of manga licensed in English '. The reader may be looking for a complete list of manga, not just those licensed in English... Cyan Gardevoir (used EDIT!) 22:48, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Thyrduulf. It also imposible to have a complete list of manga, and not only that but manga that arent licensed in english are usually not notable. So this is as good as it gets. Or posibly make list separated by distributors.Lucia Black (talk) 18:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • List of manga distributors is one of the entries on my proposed list of lists, the articles on the listed distributors mostly seem to list the titles they distribute, including non-English ones. Thryduulf (talk) 10:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We are an english encyclopedia and as per Lucia it is impossible to have a complete list of manga I dont see a problem with the redirect. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I added the Wiki project Anime and manga to the redirect's talk page so this redirect should be included over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Anime and manga, I tried to post it up but ran into a snag some help would be thankful as it would draw more attention. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:37, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed it there. Calathan (talk) 22:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate because Category:Manga does in fact contain a complete list of manga with wikipedia articles. Siuenti (talk) 21:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A rather overbaringly long that will eventually need to be splot. Amd there will never be an end. It might aswell be a list of books.Lucia Black (talk) 05:03, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which is why this should not be an article, but as this title is not a list your comments do not address whether it should be a redirect to the more defined list, a disambiguation page, a redirect to somewhere else (e.g. my proposed List of lists) or deleted entirely. Thryduulf (talk) 15:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Calathan (talk) 22:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There is no way that a general list of manga (or even a language-specific one for a major language) is going to be of any encyclopedic value, and this should not be encouraged. At best, we're duplicating Amazon's product listings (currently 16,000+ volumes in English, so a minimum of 1600 entries right now), and at worst, tracking a literary tradition that is claimed to go as far back as the 12th century in its source language (the numbers of which are close to unfathomable). MSJapan (talk) 04:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are aware that this is about deleting the redirect? In which case deletion would mean that list of manga would no longer link to the magna in english distrbution article. If you want the article itself deleted you need to nominate that article at WP:AFD because that decision can't be made here.--64.229.167.20 (talk) 08:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes. I was responding to one of the initial points made in addition to the vote. MSJapan (talk) 04:12, 10 December 2012 (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.

Talk:Ferenc Kovács[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 moot. I've replaced the redirect with the appropriate WikiProject banners. For future reference, redirects of this nature can simply be overwritten by any editor. Thryduulf (talk) 13:11, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect redirect, pointing from the talkpage of a disambiguation page to a specific page instead of being blank. The Banner talk 11:26, 1 December 2012 (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.


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 close by creator of discussion. This is not the right venue under the circumstances. NAC. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:DennisTheTiger/Justin Bieber Death Hoax[edit]

I suppose it's unusual for a user page based redirect to be put in RfD, but due to some confusion, I requested it be undeleted/userfied for me the other day. I was confused as to why I was getting the notifications because I didn't remember creating this redirect. =)

In any case, the contention of the user who put in for CSD on this article was that there was no content - however, the page was blanked by him. The article was later removed as per G3 (hoax). My original intent, when I had created the redirect from what I felt was an otherwise non-notable article, was that it be redirected as an otherwise valid search criteria to point to Mr. Bieber's article. Now, I'm not so sure, and would like to leave it up to consensus as to whether my original thought is truly the case. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:44, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • To clarify, are you asking whether there should be a redirect from Justin Bieber Death Hoax to Justin Bieber? Thryduulf (talk) 13:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • More or less, I suppose. This may be the wrong way to do it, but at the time it seemed like the right thing. =D --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • On second thought, you have a point. Another user notes to me that this is not worth holding onto due to the sheer number of hoaxes around Bieber. I'll see into closing this. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:40, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.

hp[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 as pointing to horsepower, case sensitivity is considered in this case as rather useful to single out two separate topics with the ambiguous abbreviation. Tikiwont (talk) 11:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Target should be changed to Hewlett-Packard, just like HP redirects, or to HP (disambiguation). Hewlett-Packarad is clearly far more common when referring to HP then horsepower. Their logo File:HP logo 2012.svg or http://www.hp.com, also uses lowercase letters. CTF83! 02:12, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as is ( → Horse power). Hewlett Packard is not known as "Hp" or "hp", only has "HP", and case differences are acceptable (see also WP:PRECISION, Talk:HP (disambiguation) and years of trickle-in comments as Talk:Hp) -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, how is horsepower any more notable then anything else on the DAB page? CTF83! 02:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, how is it not more notable than anything else known as hp on the dab page? -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, if you look at their logo, File:HP logo 2012.svg or http://www.hp.com, they use lowercase, all the more reason for hp to also redirect there. It also confirms they are known as hp, at least in their logo. CTF83! 02:56, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If there were an article about their logo, it might use "hp", but all appearances in reliable sources use "HP". A hypothetical reader who entered "hp" in the Search box would land at Horsepower (which might be where they wanted to go) and if they wanted Hewlett Packard, the hatnote would take them there. -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - Note that the opposite is not true -Hewlett Packard's hatnote doesn't link directly to Horsepower. Maybe we should add it - at least until this discussion ends? Diego (talk) 12:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I've no objection. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:01, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Target article notes 'hp' as the commonly accepted abbreviation. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:48, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is. Horsepower as a (now outdated) unit of power is still far common in Europe then the company The Banner talk 11:31, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "hp" = Horsepower, "HP" = Hewlett-Packard. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 13:35, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I fail to see anyoen sourcing that hp most commonly means horsepower, as opposed to any other term on the dab page. CTF83! 04:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I fail to see you sourcing that hp no longer most commonly means horsepower, which is the current consensus you are seeking to change. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:29, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate Case-sensitive is the greatest evil of the MediaWiki software, and lowercase and capital versions of the same text should be treated identically in nearly every case. It is 100% plausible that someone looking for horsepower would type HP in capitals and also 100% plausible that someone looking for the company would type hp in lowercase. (In fact, I just has to hit the delete key and switch the caps of these two since I forgot which is which, especially since it's so common for trademarks to always use lowercase.) Ego White Tray (talk) 16:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that this is contrary to WP:PRECISION. It is 100% possible for the users who enter the ambiguous titles to reach the intended article. The question is not whether there is any ambiguity; the question is which of the topics for the ambiguity is primary? -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:38, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering that Hewlett-Packard promotes their company with lowercase letters, we can reasonably expect our readers to type in lowercase letters as well (they saw it that way in the company logo), therefore, hp, in lowercase, has no primary topic, and I'd argue that capital HP has none either. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    "readers can reasonably type in the title" = "ambiguity", not "primary topic". Please see WP:PRIMARYTOPIC; some ambiguous titles have primary topics, even though reasonable readers might use that title when seeking a different topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate by redirecting both to HP (disambiguation). Having two article titles with different caps is fine, but using them for redirects is confusing as hell. Different capitalization shouldn't be used to redirect to different articles, and having two primary topics is a contradiction and against WP:PRIMARY. Diego (talk) 12:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Caps difference for redirects is no more confusing than caps differences for titles. See Talk:HP (disambiguation) (and its archives) for the consensus there to contradict the primary topic guidelines for a compromise. Is there a primary topic for "HP"? Yes, Hewlett-Packard. Is there a primary topic for "hp"? Yes, horsepower. These are valid answers (they might be wrong answers, but they won't be wrong just because of caps differences; they'd possibly be wrong because of failing the criteria given at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC).-- JHunterJ (talk) 12:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is: Wikipedia distinguishes between different capitalisations, and the two capitalisations have different primary usages. PamD 23:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not target to Hewlett-Packard: In that form, "hp" refers to horsepower, as it has for over 200 years pbp 06:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: "hp" = Horsepower, "HP" = Hewlett-Packard and per User:Purplebackpack89. - ʈucoxn\talk 08:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate - hp is horsepower, yes, but WP doesn't really account for caps in dabs and redirs (even though it technically should), because our users don't do so. There's also some locality bias in here as well. There's HP the computer company, HP the stock symbol of Helmerich & Payne (Hewlett-Packard's is HPQ), and HP the internationally known brand of sauce (for which we have an article). MSJapan (talk) 04:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no locality bias (whenever a primary topic exists, there's a primary topic, even if it's associated with a locality), and WP accounts for caps in dabs and redirs. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:28, 8 December 2012 (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/2012_December_1&oldid=1140112090"