Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 November 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 10[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 10, 2013.

Days of Future, Future[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. --BDD (talk) 17:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A user, User:Djole 555, moved the redirect Days of Future Future to Days of Future, Future, saying we need a comma. This is total nonsense, because zero sources use a comma and it's a totally implausible search term. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 21:28, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - plausible search term, sends the reader where they're clearly intending to go. No argument has been presented for deletion. WilyD 10:57, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly plausible. I don't think anyone is going to punctuate what they're typing when no source uses punctuation. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 14:26, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Have you never searched for an article before? People are typically not going to be searching based on sources, but from having heard the term in a conversation, or at best a vague recollection of having heard it somewhere. The overwhelming majority of editors are going to be guessing at punctuation - any plausible punction is going to occur. An implausible search term would look like "Days?! of; Future!!! Future,". The fact that one editor already assumed this must be the punctuation shows just how likely a search term it is. WilyD 15:31, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If they were to use the search bar, then Days of Future Future is going to come up anyway. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 16:09, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but it's still a plausible search term. There's no good reason to assume everyone will inevitably use the search function within the search bar (nor really that it will work for all browsers/settings). Thus we're stuck with a) it's a plausible search term, and b) there's no rationale for deletion whatsover, making the inevitable conclusion we should keep the redirect to aid readers looking for the article (as well as editors who make the same mistake when wikilinking, or who see a redlink and assume they should create an article). WilyD 16:44, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep which is the default for redirects when there is no indication of harm. Here there are no WP:RFD#DELETE grounds and since someone created the redirect at this title WP:RFD#KEEP point 5 applies. The Whispering Wind (talk) 17:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A user moved it because he thought it had a comma. That tells me a whole bunch of other people think that to. Ego White Tray (talk) 05:13, 13 November 2013 (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.

Chess.com[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. This will allow the draft article to be moved to mainspace when ready. --BDD (talk) 17:24, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to a page that does not even mention it. 2AwwsomeTell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up 17:50, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. No information about this topic in Wikipedia. Siuenti (talk) 18:12, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, serves no purpose. Toccata quarta (talk) 18:42, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Write article. Can use material from my sandbox, but beware of a certain sock puppeteer/troll who goes out of his way to block creation of this article, or to Afd it every time it gets created. MaxBrowne (talk) 22:41, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That might be a problem, because of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chess.com. But if the issues are fixed, it will be fine. 2AwwsomeTell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up 15:55, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to MaxBrowne for the draft. I'm looking to see what I can do with it. The Whispering Wind (talk) 20:46, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Write article, per MaxBrowne. This is one of the most notable chess websites. Q6637p (talk) 21:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to article, per MaxBrowne. --Lenticel (talk) 00:14, 15 November 2013 (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.

كلاب ونساء[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 to delete these specific redirects. While it is clear that as a general case redirects from foreign language terms where there is no specific link to the topic are usually deleted, the discussion below shows no consensus to apply to general rule to these specific redirects. It may be worth investing whether it is possible to feed translation information from Wiktionary or WikiData to feed to the search engine for situations like this (I don't know), and if something like that is implemented it would be entirely proper to revisit these redirects. Until then though the keep arguments below (basically that they are heavily used) are marginally stronger but not enough for me to be comfortable with an outright keep closure. I wish to emphasise that this does not invalidate the general consensus that foreign language redirects without direct relevance to the topic are normally unwanted, however these specific redirects are currently exceptions to the general case. Thryduulf (talk) 11:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These redirects’ languages are not especially related to their targets. Gorobay (talk) 15:32, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I made the sex-related Arabic redirects for the same reason given by Anthony Appleyard: as I indicated in my edit summaries when adding them, all have been receiving high traffic. I looked at the graphs on stats.grok.se and they showed that the traffic was persistently high over the past three months: for example, فلم سكس has received 25571 requests in the past 90 days. Whether the requests are from humans or bots, I can't say, but it's consistent with human activity.

The OpenNet Initiative says that

Saudi Arabia filters sites related to opposition political groups, human rights issues, and religious content deemed offensive to Muslims. Pornographic and gay sites are pervasively filtered, as well as circumvention and online privacy tools.

Arabic is also spoken in Iran, about which the OpenNet Initiative says

Consistent with one of the stated objectives of Iran's filtering policy, pornographic content is heavily filtered.

About Yemen, where Arabic is the official language, they say

Internet filtering in the Republic of Yemen has begun to target political and news Web sites and continues to target a broad scope of pornography, GLBT content, and content that presents a critical view of Islam.

These sexual topics are related to the Arabic language because they are censored in several Arabic-speaking countries. Should Wikipedia assist readers with limited English proficiency who are attempting to circumvent censorship, or is it better to send them to a page that tells them "no results"?

When making these redirects, I included HTML comments providing an English gloss (from the machine translation), because the terms are not direct translations. When nominating the redirects for deletion, Gorobay silently deleted those comments. —rybec 00:24, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since I don't speak Arabic, I had used Google Translate to look up these terms.

Arabic term machine translation target
كلاب ونساء dogs and women Zoophilia
صور كس photos pussy Pornography
فلم سكس no sex Celibacy
سكس حيوانات sex animals Zoophilia
بنات سكس girls sex Adolescent sexuality
فديو سكس video sex Pornography
صور سكس فرنسي photos sex French Pornography
سكس حيوانات مع نساء animal sex with women Zoophilia
—rybec 21:34, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the key point is that this is the English-Language Wikipedia. It is a settled consensus that, exceptionally, redirects should be permitted from words in other languages when the target has a specific connection with the language of the redirect. This is encapsulated by WP:RFD#DELETE point 8. In the very many non-English redirects that have been deleted we have not considered either the extent of usage nor providing a service to readers whose countries censor their-language Wikipedia. At this point I am not commenting on the merits of either but making the point that, yes, consensus can change, but it should be changed by Wikipedia talk:Redirect discussion not on a single RFD. By all means start a discussion on the broadening of those types of redirect that should be kept but, until then, we should go by the guideline that reflects the current consensus. The Whispering Wind (talk) 02:15, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is standard practice for foreign-language redirects when there's no connection between the subject and the language. Wikipedia isn't censored, but that doesn't mean we should bend over backwards to liberate the poor, porn-starved Arabs. Ridiculous.
As for Synonymordbok, WP:TOPRED can be a good source for new redirects, but it's also susceptible to hoaxes, gaming, and statistical noise. Compare to, for example, List of nonexistent articles (RfD). TOPRED isn't a reason for creating (or keeping) redirects that we would typically delete. --BDD (talk) 00:19, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please do compare the graph on stats.grok.se for List of nonexistent articles with the graphs for the redirects in this nomination. If traffic for these foreign terms is fake, the prankster has been at work continuously for three months.
I looked at the oldest version I could find of WP:TOPRED, from February. There at #569, #443, #320, #319, #295, #294 and #265 are seven of the redirects in this nomination (that week's list had 677 entries). If this traffic is fake, the prankster was at work nine months ago.
WP:RFD#DELETE item 8 seems to be concerned with "novel or very obscure" terms; pages that receive high traffic from human visitors are neither novel nor obscure. The underlying reasoning behind WP:RFD#DELETE item 8 seems to be that redirects should not be created unless they are likely to be useful, and that many foreign-language terms are unlikely to be used as search queries. WP:RFD#KEEP items 3 and 5 apply here; evidence of use ought to outweigh the presumption of uselessness. —rybec 07:30, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, solely on the basis of article traffic. We have to put the readers first here. Clearly, some users want to look at these article titles for whatever reason; more importantly, these users seem to be humans and not bots. In this case, adhering to past practice (deleting foreign redirects with no language-based connection to the topic) would be unhelpful to a portion of our readership (and not just one or two people), so these should be kept. — This, that and the other (talk) 05:14, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
These Arabic redirects do not help the readers. They want porn, not articles. Gorobay (talk) 14:41, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the 698 thousand requests per year for porn, the 14 thousand for sex with animals, the 222 thousand for double penetration or the 218 thousand for sex videos may be made out of prurient, rather than scholarly, interest. Indeed, many of the 992 thousand and 3.8 million direct requests for the articles may be misguided too. Displaying the articles is at least somewhat helpful to visitors who are less than fluent in English:
  1. it tells them the term used in polite society in the English language
  2. it takes them to the page they would arrive at if they used the "proper" term, so that they needn't waste more time on searches
  3. if a Wikipedia article exists in their native language, they can navigate to that using the interwiki links
Perhaps as a compromise, the Arabic redirects could be retargeted to point to the Arabic Wikipedia? —rybec 02:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Gorobay: I was using the term "readers" in a very broad sense: all human visitors to Wikipedia, regardless of whether they want porn or not... — This, that and the other (talk) 06:00, 18 November 2013 (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.

النساء والكلاب

Template:Mtc-nosubst[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 delete by Thingg. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 23:50, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved this template to my subpage. Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 14:08, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as {{Db-g7}} and tagged as such. Template was only created yesterday so deletion would not break any external links. The Whispering Wind (talk) 15:25, 10 November 2013 (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.

Jerry (vampire)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 November 18#Jerry (vampire)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2013_November_10&oldid=1077871982"