Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 April 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 1[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 1, 2014.

Wikipédia:Accueil principal[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. Involved close per WP:IAR/WP:NOTBURO, given the backlog, and with unanimous consensus after a full listing period. Contact me with concerns. --BDD (talk) 16:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While foreign-language redirects to the main page are common and accepted, I question the utility of this one using a pseudo-namespace from another language Wikipedia. BDD (talk) 17:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Wikipedia is WP:NOT a translation dictionary. There is no utility in this link as it does not lead to the Moldovan Wikipedia main page, or a main page in that language. Further the mainpage appears as the primary landing point home page for this website, so is easily found, and if you click on the globe in the corner it will lead there as well. WP:UE this is the English Wikipedia not the French one, and the main page has no affinity for any language other than English as this is supposed to be the English-language Wikipedia. And "Wikipédia" an incorrect namespace indicator, so particularly bad, leading to misconceptions about how to spell the namespace indicator on English Wikipedia. -- 70.24.250.235 (talk) 05:41, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. — Scott • talk 18:58, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The homepage is the least hard page to find. An incorrect namespace is not needed for just this one redirect. John Vandenberg (chat) 17:22, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree with all, especially John Vandenberg. Si Trew (talk) 17:57, 7 April 2014 (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.

Zloty (Tintin)[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 procedural close as restore, without prejudice for renominating at RfD again, and I dont have the heart to trout Prhartcom - asking them to go through the RfD process is trouting enough. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:19, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The decision to retarget this to the main page is truly baffling, but at any rate, this Tintin character isn't covered in any list of Tintin characters. As far as I can tell, he's mentioned once, in passing, at The Adventures of Tintin (TV series)#Changes from the books. Based on that mention, the character appeared in Cigars of the Pharaoh, but he isn't mentioned there either. I'm not averse to retargeting if we can cover this character somewhere. As it stands now, the redirect should be deleted. BDD (talk) 17:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and trout me, but please delete this redirect first. The truth is I have found that any attempt to go through the proper channels to delete redirects fails every single time (those in control always vote to keep it, arguing "redirects are cheap" and never listen to any other logic I propose). This particular Tintin character does not exist in the Tintin canon except a mention in passing, and is certainly not in the extensive List of The Adventures of Tintin characters that I maintain. Trout the person who created the damn thing. I apologize for my rash action, it was improper, but will an administrator please delete this redirect without delay. Prhartcom (talk) 12:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that we gain nothing from deleting this redirect. Since it is old we may also damage incoming or historical links. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 20:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
The point is you are proving my point. Prhartcom (talk) 22:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That seems a bit bureaucratic, though I suppose we can retarget it back there if we don't come up with a better target or delete. Probably not a single editor thinks this should redirect to the main page—not even Prhartcom. --BDD (talk) 21:29, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Any action other than restoring this redirect to its prior state will justify Prhartcom's completely unorthodox retargeting in order to circumvent standard RfD procedure. — Scott • talk 23:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please delete it. No one will look for this Tintin character. If you say otherwise you are presuming to know more than I on this subject. BDD, thank-you for the support. Prhartcom (talk) 22:37, 3 April 2014 (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.

American race[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, without prejudice to the creation of a disambiguation page if one can be created according to policy. Thryduulf (talk) 10:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This nickname isn't used on the target page, and "american race" -wikipedia isn't turning up anything related to Belmont (neither is "america's race" -wikipedia, which the nominator used in the edit summary). Admittedly, this is a difficult phrase to google. A few pages in I found a reference to the Kentucky Derby as "America's Race. Being a vague search term, deletion is probably the best option here, though it could possibly be retargeted somewhere, such as the dab Great American Race. BDD (talk) 17:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete I'm getting the same sort of search results and disambiguating someone's slogan (and I'm dubious it is anyone's slogan) is in my opinion uncalled for. Mangoe (talk) 17:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm not finding any specific terms that refer to this phrase. (I originally wanted to state that this title should either be (weak) disambiguated or (weak) retargeted to American Dad! since the phrase is in a line of the show's title song, but I'm not seeing enough coverage in the article's current state to warrant that option unless the article was expanded to include this phrase somewhere [and then disambiguation might have been the best option.]) Steel1943 (talk) 18:49, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase brought American Dad! to mind for me also. But yes, especially while the phrase isn't included there, it's not a good retargeting option. --BDD (talk) 19:19, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What, all of a sudden I'm not an American? Mangoe (talk) 17:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just delete; sometimes the best result is for the reader to hit the search results page. John Vandenberg (chat) 17:42, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per John Vandenberg. The difficulty with "American" is also it has two senses: "citizen (or resident) of the United States" and "anyone who lives in the Americas". I think George Washington proposed, when there was a little frisson in Boston with the United Kingdom over some kind of minor stamp tax on imports which they never paid anyway, that they called themselves "Statesmen", but this too would be an overloaded term. Not every American lives in the United States. Delete it. I don't like American Dad much but I love Family Guy. Si Trew (talk) 14:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Joke. Apparently when the U.S. asked for the freehold of the U.S. London Embassy in Grosvenor Square, the Duke of Westminster who owns it replied that they could do so if he could have Virginia back. Si Trew (talk) 14:23, 14 April 2014 (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.

Guangxi Teachers College[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. --BDD (talk) 17:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Reasons for deleting No.10 - The redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains absolutely no information on the subject. It is better that the target article contain a redlink than a redirect back to itself. Rincewind42 (talk) 13:29, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have enough information for a stub beyond, "Guangxi Teachers College is a College for teaching in Guangxi" which would speedy deleted under categories WP:A1, WP:A3 and WP:A7. Rather it should be a red link for the reasons described at WP:REDLINK: it encourages new articles to be created. Rincewind42 (talk) 08:04, 4 April 2014 (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.

Megadeth's 12th untitled studio album[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. --BDD (talk) 00:02, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the target is an actual titled album and that it is Megadeth's 12th album, not 12th untitled album, makes these illogically named redirects. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 08:00, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - old enough to be externally linked. Plausible (if unlikely) search terms. The first (but not second) ones are ungrammatical, but of course, we bes makin' ungrammatical arranged words from time to time. WilyD 09:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete How many untitled studio albums does Megadeth have, anyway? I'm guessing the answer isn't twelve. Even if it is a plausible search term, it appears that there isn't a place to link to that matches the search phrase. Mangoe (talk) 13:47, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete the first "Megadeth's 12th untitled studio album" as it is misleading, since it would mean that there are 11 other untitled studio albums by Megadeath. -- 70.24.250.235 (talk) 05:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep neither new nor harmful. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 17:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Yes, they are harmful. We don't have to work so hard to trap everyone's overly precise and incorrect search criteria. What should they link to: statements that "Megadeth doesn't have twelve untitled studio albums"? "Megadeth's twelfth album actually has a title"? Especially considering how sloppy our own search is, there isn't a need for this kind of redirect because these searches are going to find the right page anyway, without the redirects! Mangoe (talk) 17:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting them is harmful:
  1. There may be external links to these redirects.
  2. One has significant content in the history released under CC-BY-SA, if this is used elsewhere we break the attribution link.
Conversely
  1. "We don't have to work so hard ..." we aren't we are working (here) to do the opposite.
  2. "What should they link to..." They link to the 12th album, we are not making an encyclopaedic statement in the title of a redirect.
Remember, redirects are cheap. The cost of discussing at RfD is several orders of magnitude more than the cost of a redirect.
All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 20:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
(a) We don't know why external links connect to something that is untrue (and in the first case, was always inaccurate). They need to be encouraged to fix their links to point to the correct article, which we do by deleting invalid targets.
(b) That's an argument that we can't delete anything, and therefore isn't valid.
(c) & (d) Redirects are only cheap if we ignore them and just let them sit there; but then, everything in Wikipedia is cheap on those terms. Mangoe (talk) 22:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that breath of fresh air, Mangoe. — Scott • talk 23:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, erroneous, incorrect, BAD! Breaking links are good when they fix errors on Wikipedia, and they alert linking websites to the fact that they are linking to an incorrect assertion. John Vandenberg (chat) 17:49, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, first and foremost following Mangoe's reasoning here. "twelve" is not a relevant number in here, and it requires the qualification of "studio album". Trivial and wrong, this page is not a search help. I bet it is even wrongfooting good search engines. Why would we "improve" an overview that categories and discography give by essence? Here are their albums, including this one. And here it is numbered fifteen for another good reason. There are better ways to overview albums. -DePiep (talk) 18:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per DePiep. And patently it is not untitled since Wikipedia has just titled it and is now discussing what its title should be. Si Trew (talk) 23:29, 10 April 2014 (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.

Паӂина принчипалэ[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. Thryduulf (talk) 11:00, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Name of main page on Moldovan Wikipedia, which might be deleted sooner or later (see here TheChampionMan1234 05:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete paž̆ina princhipale Wikipedia is WP:NOT a translation dictionary. There is no utility in this link as it does not lead to the Moldovan Wikipedia main page, or a main page in that language. Further the mainpage appears as the primary landing point home page for this website, so is easily found, and if you click on the globe in the corner it will lead there as well. WP:UE this is the English Wikipedia not the Moldovan one, and the main page has no affinity for any language other than English as this is supposed to be the English-language Wikipedia. -- 70.24.250.235 (talk) 08:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - directs readers to what they're looking for, a necessary function in an encyclopaedia. No argument has been presented for deletion, nor can I imagine any. Certainly an indefensible position to take from an encyclopaedia building perspective. WilyD 09:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I have told in my argument that mowiki will be deleted as it is just a silly way to write another language, click on the link to read the proposal --TheChampionMan1234 10:19, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does not, it points to a Wikipedia jargon topic, not the encyclopedic topic. Wikipedia is not the only thing with a principal page. -- 70.24.250.235 (talk) 07:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For reasons I don't entirely understand, there are many foreign-language redirects to the main page; this has traditionally been an exception to WP:FORRED. I suppose one could argue that Wikipedia is inherently multilingual, so any language is potentially related to the main page. The number of foreign language redirects to the article Wikipedia seem to bear out this theory. I believe some of these have come up at RfD and survived, though I can't find any such instances offhand. --BDD (talk) 17:14, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Many of those seem to have been created en masse by single editors in the summer of 2007. This presumably stems from a single discussion somewhere that I have yet to track down. As Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 October 20#Mae meh shows, that "tradition" is based at least partially on some weak arguments in a poorly-attended RfD, and is long overdue to be reassessed. — Scott • talk 18:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per 70.24. — Scott • talk 18:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per 70.24, and the noms reasoning that "Паӂина принчипалэ" is a title in an unrecognised language. User:Scott, if we dig back I think we'll find these were created because [[:de:]] used to be an invalid link, so we would write [[:de:Main Page]] (which worked because .. English) and we thought it appropriate to reciprocate by creating redirects like Hauptseite so that on German Wikipedia they could write [[:en:Hauptseite]] instead of [[:en:Main Page]]. However that bug is now fixed and [[:de:]] links to the wiki and lets the wiki select which page is the homepage.(e.g. de:). Once we get that bug number, we should do dump searches to determine how often these were used by sister-Wikipedias - my guess is very infrequent use. John Vandenberg (chat) 19:40, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Why would a user expect an English main page when typing a Moldovian word? (tip: one could have the beginning of an argument when the text would say "English main page"). If such a construct were required, then not in en mainspace. -DePiep (talk) 18:26, 8 April 2014 (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.

Welcome to Wikipedia[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 April 15#Welcome to Wikipedia

List of colloquialisms[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 April 16#List of colloquialisms

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_1&oldid=1138579355"