Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 September 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 9[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 9, 2012

… period of World War II[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 Timeline of World War II as the more general NPOV target. Tikiwont (talk) 15:41, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. First period of World War II → Strategic operations of the Red Army in World War II (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
  2. Second period of World War II → Strategic operations of the Red Army in World War II (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
  3. Third period of World War II → Strategic operations of the Red Army in World War II (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

An extensive discussion took place at WT: WikiProject Military history #World War II started in…, but resulted in no consensus. Also notice a hostile edit of Andrew Gray (talk · contribs), who tries to preserve an obvious nonsense for some clumsy reasons. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget all to Timeline of World War II. A look at the sources available on Google Books shows that these terms are not used to relate to any universally defined periods, rather they relate to periods relevant to the specific topic being dealt with, and even then they are mostly subjectively defined by each author - for example some regard the first period as being the build up prior to fighting while others use it to describe the period starting with the formal declaration of war. Further the terms are used with reference to all aspects of WWII, not just the Red Army. If there are any notable periodic divisions used by multiple authors then these should either be included on the timeline page or a link to where they are discussed added to it. While the terms are not used as an exact phrase extensively, they are very likely and useful search terms. Thryduulf (talk) 21:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget all per nom. The pages were created as WP:SOAP for an editor blocked for soapboxing and sockpuppetry. ( Mrg3105 (talk · contribs) ) -- if possible, the edit histories should also be deleted per WP:DENY . -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 00:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since this seems to be being floated in multiple locations, I want to point out my previous comments at WT#MILHIST#World War II started in… - redirecting to Strategic operations of the Red Army in World War II, which actually contains content relating to the periodisation concept, allows the reader to understand why they've encountered the term. Using the general "timeline" article - itself only an index of other pages - gives no clue as to what this phrase might mean; it's vastly less helpful for the reader.
I understand Incnis' desire to "correct" the inaccurate term, but I think there's a point at which we need to say that the redirect should go to somewhere which explains the error, rather than just denying its existence. (As a side note, I would appreciate not being described as "hostile" and "clumsy" for diagreeing with them...). Andrew Gray (talk) 09:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Hostile" means reverting a legitimate edit because of preferences, not rules or community consensus, especially while a corresponding discussion is ongoing. Why do you repeat an argument already refuted by three users? That "periods of World War II", referring to the Eastern Front (World War II) historiography, was a personal invention of a user blocked for soapboxing. I would not object against "periods of the Great Patriotic War", though, as it seems like just a translation of the corresponding Russian term период(ы) Великой Отечественной войны. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reverting an edit you believe to be in error, giving a reason why, is not "hostile".
Yes, the technically correct term is "period of the GPW", and yes, this periodisation method is long obsolete. But does it really cost us so much to leave the "of WWII" redirects in place, given we have an article which explains the concept and what the phrases mean? Andrew Gray (talk) 10:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It would be highly misleading since it would mean that World War II is nothing but the Great Patriotic War. Anything not related to the Red Army is explicitly excluded with that target. This would included almost the totality of the Pacific War, the entire North African theatre, the Western Front of Europe, the Southeast Asian theatre. -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 11:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
confusing redirect was an ironically meaningful "reason why". Although my choice of the target was not thoroughly considered, it was not a patented nonsense anyway. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:27, 10 September 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.

[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 Private use (unicode). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:42, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. They are private use characters that, in some fonts, map to tengwar, but any font can display any glyph for these characters. There can be no clear target for such redirects. Gorobay (talk) 16:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget all to Private use (unicode) which explains the different mappings. On this system I don't see Tengwar, but Tux, the copyleft symbol, various digraphs, trigraphs and an odd selection of numerals. Thryduulf (talk) 18:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget as above. Siuenti (talk) 20:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retargeting is an okay solution. Deletion is consistent with WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 August 4#. The proposed target does not explain the different mappings. Gorobay (talk) 13:26, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget all I don't see Tengwar. Instead, I see circles, checkmarks, diamonds and other symbols. Private Use Area characters could be anything depending on what fonts you have. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:41, 30 September 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.

14. amendment[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 or No consensus (not sure which one) (Non-Admin closure) Under normal circumstances, redirects like 14. amendment would be concerned implausible, but this gets allot of page views. (Normally, I wouldn't feel qualified to close an RFD, but this thing has been open for over a month, and it's been over a month sense the last time someone posted in this RFD. This is long overdue to be closed.) Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 18:48, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is an unused redirect resulting from a typo or misnomer which is implausible and not common. Senator2029 • talk 04:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep. Far from being unused this redirect gets massive numbers of page views - over 100 hits in August and July, over 200 in June and nearly 800 in May. This also proves it's neither implausible nor uncommon. Thryduulf (talk) 10:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Statistically yes that's true, but logically no, "14. amendment" is not important. It gets high hits because it's the first in the suggestions list when the user types "14 amendment". --JBrown23 (talk) 20:13, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • On the contrary, "14. amendment" is important precisely because it gets massive numbers of hits. Redirects exist to make it easier for people to find the content they are looking for, and by deleting redirects they use we actively harm the encyclopaedia by making it harder to navigate. You make a good point though that they should be marked as {{unprintworthy}}, which will remove them from the suggestions box. Thryduulf (talk) 21:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think you understand. When someone types "14 amendment", presses the down arrow, and hits return, "14. amendment" is counted as a hit. If the suggestions list showed "14 amendment" first, "14. amendment" would get virtually no hits. No one ever searches or links "14. amendment" which looks like a retarded typo. People are pressing down arrow + enter. That's how "14. amendment" gets hits. There is no other reason anyone else would select "14. amendment" other than you don't have to press the down arrow key twice. If we deleted it, no one would be inconvenienced. --JBrown23 (talk) 22:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Because the internal search engine is only one of many ways to navigate Wikipedia, and one of only a very few to offer search suggestions, we can never be sure how people are finding this redirect. If it is removed from the internal search engine suggestions and it goes down to just the background noise level of hits (around 2-3/month) then yes it's almost certain that everyone was finding it that way. However it is more likely that at least some people are accessing it via bookmarks, links from external sites, old mirrors, external search engines, directly entering the URL, or any other way of navigating Wikipedia. Even if nobody is using it other than using the internal search engine, what benefits would be brought be deleting it? Thryduulf (talk) 23:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Why would anyone ever choose "14. amendment" than it shows up first by the suggestions engine? Why do the standard reasons for deleting a redirect not apply here as well? I don't think you have an argument. --JBrown23 (talk) 10:13, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why people choose a redirect is irrelevant, it matters only that they do. Anyway, let's look at the standard reasons for deleting and keeping redirects. Reasons to delete redirects:
    1. "The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine." Not relevant here as there is only one similarly named article, which is the redirect target.
    2. "The redirect might cause confusion." Again, not relevant - there is no article it might be confused with.
    3. "The redirect is offensive or abusive." Clearly irrelevant here.
    4. "The redirect constitutes self-promotion or spam" ditto.
    5. "The redirect makes no sense, such as redirecting Apple to Orange.". Again nothing, redirecting "14. amendment" to "14th amendment" is the most sensible target.
    6. "It is a cross-namespace redirect..." it isn't, so not relevant here.
    7. "If the redirect is broken, meaning it redirects to itself or to an article that does not exist," It isn't broken, so no relevance here either.
    8. "If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name ... unrelated foreign language ... implausible typo or misnomer". The only one of those that it could possibly be is a typo, but if it is then over 100 hits/month proves it's highly plausible.
    9. "If the target article needs to be moved to the redirect title". Nope, the target article is in the right place.
    10. "If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article...", Nope, it's an alternative rendering of a disambiguation page anything this page could be other than a redirect would be a duplicate or fork.
  • So, none of the standard reasons for deleting apply, let's look at the standard reasons for keeping:
    1. "They have a potentially useful page history, or edit history that should be kept to comply with the licensing requirements for a merge". It was created as a redirect so there is no history here.
    2. "They would aid accidental linking and make the creation of duplicate articles less likely." possible, but unlikely.
    3. "They aid searches on certain terms." This is aiding the searches of over 100 people - a clear reason to keep. You may disagree that they should be using it, but they are.
    4. "You risk breaking incoming or internal links by deleting the redirect." This has been around since 2009 and gets a very high number of page views, the chance of breaking incoming links is moderately likely - were the target an article rather than a dab page it would be highly likely.
    5. "Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do.". The stats show that over 100 people a month find this useful.
    6. "The redirect is to a plural form or to a singular form, or to some other grammatical form." Well it's not a plural/singular issue, but arguably it's to "some other grammatical form" particularly as Ordinal indicator#Croatian, Czech, Danish, Estonian, Faroese, German, Hungarian, Icelandic, Latvian, Norwegian, Polish, Slovak, Slovene, Serbian, Turkish notes that in those languages "A period or full stop is written after the numeral."
  • So no delete reasons apply, but 4-5 standard reasons to keep apply in whole or in part. What was that about having no argument? Thryduulf (talk) 16:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf - the redirect is clearly in use and deleting it would serve no purpose. Interplanet Janet, Esquire IANAL 10:11, 11 September 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_September_9&oldid=1039428801"