Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 April 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 26[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 26, 2014.

Star Wars Episode VII: A New Dawn[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 May 5#Star Wars Episode VII: A New Dawn

Hauptseite[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. Something needs to happen here, so I'm performing an WP:INVOLVED close, and I think "any reasonable administrator" would call no consensus here. Contact me with concerns. --BDD (talk) 19:28, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Name of Main Page on German Wikipedia, nothing really useful here TheChampionMan1234 07:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - useful for navigation of the encyclopaedia, particularly for a page whose name is difficult to guess. WilyD 10:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep See my comments at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 April 1#Паӂина принчипалэ. --BDD (talk) 17:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the Wikipedia main page is not the encyclopedic topic of a website homepage, therefore this redirect is highly misleading. WP:NOT Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary, the English mainpage has no information in German therefore is not useful for German readers wanting information about homepages in German. WP:UE, English wikipedia is for information written about in English, not German. -- 70.24.250.235 (talk) 03:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As a German I don't even understand whats your argument here. Can you rephrase why you think this is " highly misleading"? I would assume that almost any native German speaking user would assume, that looking for "Hauptseite" in the EN.wiki would lead to the wikis main page through some "clever trickery". So the redirect does just that. I dont think that any native German speaking user thinks to get informations about ... whatever, let alon in German. Btw.:The most commonly used word in German for "homepage" is NOT "Hauptseite" but "Homepage". Another reason why nobody would expect information about homepages if typing in "Hauptseite". But again, maybe I do not understand your argument properly. --Soulman (talk) 22:12, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all of 70.24's reasoning. — Scott • talk 13:45, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I am hopeless at finding these things but it was a couple of days before this one (i.e. before this listing, April 1 or March 30 or around there) for the French equivalent, Accueil principal, and John Vandeberg (I think) argued and I (amongst others) agreed that it is the easiest page possibly to find and there is no need for these foreign-language redirects. Si Trew (talk) 14:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Haha, found it here at RfD for 1 April. But even more bizarrely with that one, it had the acute accent on the "é", in the namespace Wikipédia, which this hasn't: so not quite the same argument, but close enough I think. Si Trew (talk) 14:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:22, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep foreign-language redirects to the Main Page, as they have in most cases been around for a long time, and they are likely to have incoming links from websites and other places. This one in particular dates from 2004; it would have to take something pretty calamitous to get my Delete vote on such an old redirect. — This, that and the other (talk) 07:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Our main page is not about the topic of "Hauptseite", it is simply En.Wiki's home page, that's not the same thing as the encyclopedic topic. -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 03:16, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - useful for navigation croos different languages. I am German and mainly use de.wikipedia. I always liked that this redirect made my life quite easy if I needed to go to the english pages. There might tons of alternate ways, but I don't see why it hurts to keep it. Soulman (talk) 21:56, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect to de:Hauptseite. That's probably what the user wanted. Given the traffic stats, we can't just delete this. --NYKevin 14:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - useful for navigation across different languages. I am German and mainly use de.wikipedia. I always liked that this redirect made my life quite easy if I needed to go to the english pages after unintentionally opening the "wrong" wiki. There might tons of alternate ways, but I don't see why it hurts to keep it. And also: This is the behaviour since ages. Everybody is used to it. Why change now, after what... 10 years. Soulman (talk) 21:57, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please give examples of "Everybody is used to it". Stats are about 120 a day. The number of German-speaking people using this is minimal when German language says at the last census there were 522,180 in Canada. Add to that a few that live in Minnesota and other places like, er, Germany and Austria for example, and a bit of The Netherlands and even a few in Hungary where I live, then it is not really much of a percentage is it. You mean: "I am used to it". That is what bookmarks are for: or you will just have to get unused to it. Si Trew (talk) 23:10, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it is not even in the right namespace for that malarkey. A cross-namespace redirect and to one in a foreign language messieurs ets dames, faites vos jeux:
Accueil principal (French, recently deleted from RfD)
Pagíno principa (Portuguese, recently deleted from RFD)
Kezdőlap, also exists in the same manner. That's Hungarian: But although I look up Hungarian Wikipedia a lot I have never looked it up in that way, and that should go by the same token: I would go via the Wikilinks, failing that I would go to HU main page which is the easiest page you can find by going to [hu.wikipedia.org] and then search for the article I was looking for when crosslinking etc from there.
I bet other languages also have these needless crosslinks, but I am taking Occam's Razor, four suffice (even Euclid only used to prove things by saying if it exists for one, two, and three, it exists for all numbers: he was a bit at a disadvantage not having zero, negative numbers, real numbers, structural inductance and so on, so he didn't do too badly all things considered).
Redirect to cross-namespace foreign language page, c'mon, who's leg are you pulling? I'll go through the WikiData but I have to put that effort in to save one editor three keystrokes? Si Trew (talk) 23:03, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As a wiser editor Scott? put it, "the home page is the easiest page to find". That is what convinced me. Anything else clutters search engines and makes things harder to find. Now Deutsch spreken volk can't find their own main page cos some other search engine assumes they want this redirect: that's my reasoning on these. Necessarily that involves second-guessing since until they get deleted no wonder it gets so many hits: then their favourite search engine will take them to the deutsche Wikipedia without them being WP:SURPRISEd they end up here. You may not agree but I imagine you see my logic in my reasoning. Si Trew (talk) 23:39, 18 May 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.

Aniliidae (synonym) et alia[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. Thanks to PamD for leaving some clues to help confused readers. --BDD (talk) 18:14, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These "synonym" redirects do not serve any useful purpose. They appear to be an idiosyncratic attempt by one editor to "fill" a category - see Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_10#Acontias_.28synonym.29. DexDor (talk) 05:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all per nom DexDor. We might as well have "antonym" or "homonym" or whatever. Now, there may be a technical anatomical sense for "synonym", but if they need disambiguating, that is what a DAB page or hatnote is for. These are not even consistent: Tisiphone (synonym) goes to a DAB whereas Echidne (synonym) redirects to the article Echidne and is patently unnecessary. Halys (synonym) redirects to Halys which is a DAB. Si Trew (talk) 05:57, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I note many if not all of these are not tagged as being under discussion here. Si Trew (talk) 06:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    perhaps I was mistaken but now Echidne (synonym) redirects to the DAB at Echidne which has two entries and should go per WP:TWODABS, either one is primary or the other. Echidna (synonym) redirects to the DAB at Echidna (disambiguation) for which the lede links to Echidna which is presumably primary. Cenchrus (synonym) redirects to Cenchrus (disambiguation). Mesopteryx is an R to an article, Eastern Moa. Taking Occam's Razor I am not going to needlessly multiply examples, but the whole point of taxonomy is to give something a name so people can find it, and a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. But this is foolishly inconsistent. Si Trew (talk) 11:03, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    In matters zoological/ it all seems quite rhetorical/ the question is not stated/ whether these get kept or slated./ But since it seems quite clear to me/ to say "echidna" or "echidne"/ are likely searched for those not knowing/ we should sort out where they are going. Si Trew (talk) 11:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    and what is constrictor (synonym) doing there? The boa constrictor is the one species for which its common and taxonomical name are the same. You might as well direct it to bottleneck or pinch point, which we just discussed the other day. Si Trew (talk) 21:29, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Si, I've indented your comments above to form a group, as the presence of one bolded line start per user aids at-a-glance assessment of discussions. I hope you don't mind. — Scott • talk 14:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do mind a bit. I don't change yours. I looked up every single one of these redirects and only didn't list where they went to because I thought it was needlessly multplying examples per Occam's Razor. Most of them are not tagged for being at RfD, which doesn't help other editors. But I don't change your comments. Don't worry, I'll get over it by breakfast time, and am very happy because I got my permanent residency card for Hungary today. Despite seventeen pieces of paperwork they managed to put the wrong address on it so that means whoever lives at number 34 has to pay my taxes. Si Trew (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from someone else: I have went ahead and fixed all of the malformed entries on this page. Also, I have stuck out Tortricidae (synonym) since it is not a redirect, but a disambiguation page, and thus does not belong on this forum (I may do something with that page myself). Also, I have placed RfD templates on the rest of the nominations on this page (since only the first nominated redirect had an RfD template placed on it. Steel1943 (talk) 03:45, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I am not a zoologist or taxonomist, and I wonder whether there are any such specialists contributing to this discussion? While the redirects as listed above don't seem useful, the situation seems to be:
  • Some biological taxonomic groups have recognised synonyms, earlier names now no longer used butlisted in the taxobox under "Synonyms", and presumably used in older literature.
  • Wikipedia ought to have a way for a reader to get from any of these older names to its current equivalent.
  • Consider the first item listed above: the page for the family Cylindrophiidae shows that "Aniliidae" is a synonym. We should therefore (as far as I can see) provide an access to that article from that term.
  • But Aniliidae does not offer a link to Cylindrophiidae.
  • Aniliidae (synonym) is a redirect to Cylindrophiidae, but not likely to be found by a reader looking for the older term.
  • So I suggest that there needs to be a hatnote at Aniliidae or (if there are multiple potential targets) then a dab page at Aniliidae (disambiguation), to help such a reader.
  • There are several different scenarios among the list of redirects above. I suggest that these unlikely-to-be-useful redirects should be deleted, but that we must ensure that there are links from the undisambiguated names of all those synonyms through to the articles to which those redirects were linking.
  • We really need a taxonomic expert to comment here! Me, I'm just a retired librarian with O-level Biology and a passion for helping readers to find the articles they need by making sure we have all the right redirects, hatnotes and dab pages. PamD 14:36, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pinging Faendalimas, who's a taxonomist and works in the area of reptiles. He may also be able to suggest some other people worth consulting. — Scott • talk 14:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ok got the message give me a day I am chatting to a colleague who works on these species, but it is Easter so may not see her for a day or two. Faendalimas talk 15:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No hurry, thanks for your help. That's even better than I had hoped for. Have a good Easter. — Scott • talk 21:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Pinging Faendalimas to check for updates.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:20, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: instead of waiting for a taxonomist, I've now added hatnotes at Aniliidae Aspidorhynchus and Leiolepis and tidied up dab pages at Megaera (disambiguation) and Tortricidae (disambiguation). The rest were already catered for in dab pages. As far as I can see, each of the undisambiguated versions of the RDs above now leads to somewhere from where the appropriate target article can easily be found. I see no purpose in having these redirects. PamD 12:57, 28 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.

Unsimulated real sex[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 to unsimulated sex. Number 57 14:37, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible search term, mostly because of redundancy. Created within the last six months. BDD (talk) 17:23, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • strong keep or retarget this is getting nearly 400 hits every month, so it's clearly not an implausible thing to look for. The only question is whether the current target is the best - sexual intercourse is not inappropriate by any means, but my gut feeling is that this is a term more related to pornography so either pornography or reality pornography are worth considering as targets too. The former may be too general and the latter is quite stubby, so I'm very open to other suggestions too. Thryduulf (talk) 17:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is more hits than I expected, but a lot of readers are probably searching for Unsimulated sex, see this suggested, and get curious. --BDD (talk) 17:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is an argument for possibly retargetting to Unsimulated sex, not one for deletion. People following the link out of curiosity are being educated - educating people is Wikipedia's core mission. Thryduulf (talk) 20:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
More titillation than curiosity, I'd think. I could create George Washington's clown career, and it might get some hits from curious readers. How are we "educating" these readers? By letting them know that... sex exists? But as a good friend of mine is fond of saying, "You can't just make things up." --BDD (talk) 20:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes you can. That is why there is a redirect for Beethoven's liver, which I made up, the content was correct but the article went to AfD and I incorporated into Death of Beethoven quite rightly since it is more about his offal more generally than his liver (which according to pathologist J S Madden was "twice the normal size and covered in pea-sized nodules" and if that ain't poetry I don't know what is) – but I created the article and the content has stayed there. The fact an R is incorrect does not make it an unlikely search term, in fact one of the points of Rs I would have thought was to help people who search things wrongly to find the right article, and if it gets that many hits (I haven't checked I am taking it on trust) then all to the good. Si Trew (talk) 04:14, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Articles for deletion/Beethoven's liver was closed as merge, but WP:Deletion review/Log/2013 December 25 overturned that to delete. User:S Marshall recreated the redirect a day later (history), and you added Madden to Death of Ludwig van Beethoven#Autopsy and post-mortem findings around 6 weeks after that (history). Flatscan (talk) 04:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I was out of order there. I took the merge decision and didn't see the deletion review. It took me a while to get around to doing it, I admit, but I was not intentionally trying to subvert process. Si Trew (talk) 14:30, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Implausible search term. "Unsimulated real sex" is not only redundant but also implies the nonsensical existence of "unsimulated false sex". Removing this redirect won't impede anyone's searching: if you type "unsimulated" in the search box you get unsimulated sex, and searching Google for "unsimulated sex" unsurprisingly returns unsimulated sex as the first result. — Scott • talk 20:34, 15 April 2014 (UTC)ld be.[reply]
    • People use many different methods to search and browse Wikipedia, most of them don't get search suggestions - even those using the main search bar only get them if they have javascript enabled. Google results vary by many factors, including location, version of google and personal search history, so cannot be relied upon - indeed the presence of a redirect aids google to direct users to the right place. Not that Google results for "unsimulated sex" are that relevant to the "unsimulated real sex" redirect in the first place... Thryduulf (talk) 11:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • They're not relevant to this redirect, obviously, because it has the wrong target. It should have been aimed at unsimulated sex in the first place, but as it's illogical and redundant, the best fix for that issue is simply to delete it. — Scott • talk 14:31, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Unsimulated sex. I don't know what real artificial sex or real simulated sex would be, but if it gets that many hits it should stay. Si Trew (talk) 04:08, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:16, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to unsimulated sex, then redirect unsimulated fake sex to unsimulated sex too /s. --NYKevin 03:36, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am not a native english speaker, but: Is this an actually used term? It sounds a bit to me as if we have redirects such as "not a toy car" to "Automobile". I mean: Where does this stop? Why not having also "Unsimulated nonvirtual real sex" or "Realy unsimulated nonvirtual real physical sex"?--Soulman (talk) 13:30, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with Soulman. It's a tautology. Assuming "unsimulated" means "real", for the sake of the argument, then we need "real real sex". I might as well create Unsimulated Real Madrid to redirect to Madrid (since we all know Real Madrid are right fakers in the first place, that is taken as an axiom <<smiles/>>, I agree with you it is asymptotic towards infinity, essentially a reductio ad absurdem. Wow, four languages in once sentence! Si Trew (talk) 23:27, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
An internet search finds very little usage of this term (I'm not a great fan of them but in a case like this, if the term were common it's difficult to argue for deletion of a redirect IMO). But are we sure real and unsimulated mean the same thing here? It seems to me it's possible when someone says real sex, they are thinking of sexual intercourse i.e. penile-vaginal penetration as opposed to other things like anal sex or oral sex which some may call sex but others may not consider 'real sex'. (Our article does mention the term 'real sex', in fact it mentions other possible restrictions such as condom usage.) So in a case like that, it's not clear there's any redundancy. (I think most people would search for a better term like unsimulated sexual intercourse or unsimulated vaginal sex. But I guess it's possible some may not be sure what to call it, particularly if they preclude condom usage or something else in their definition of 'real sex'.)
Another alternative is people are thinking of sex which they consider 'real' or 'realistic' as opposed to the sex depicted in most pornographic films which is generally considered to be fairly different from most genuine sexual encounters. (NSFW) Somewhat related to Reality pornography although I think many find most reality pornography nearly as 'unreal' as most other forms. Either way, this is more complicated. It's fair to say it's not that common to have simulated porn sex, although there must be some, e.g. fiction video (whether a film or a TV series or whatever) about pornography in some fashion. Many movies etc obviously try to depict real sex to some degree (although many would disagree about how well they do it). Unsimulated real sex meanwhile is probably not the best description but could refer to people having sex in a fashion some consider 'real' (whether they are just having sex or doing it for a pornographic video but good at avoiding the 'unreal' aspects typical of such films). Of course it's unlikely people would refer to it in that way very often (the issue is only likely to come up with depictions and in most such cases it's an unwieldy and odd description, e.g. for pornography 'unsimulated sex' is generally a given). In other words, confusing and uncommon, but IMO not necessarily redundant.
The movie thing got me thinking of a third option related to the second. While non pornographic movies etc try to a greater degree to depict 'real sex', it's commonly suggest many don't do it that well [1]. In fact, while their intentions are usually somewhat different from pornographic films, they may be more interested in depicting sex to advanced the story, tiltate the audience or whatever rather than depicting real sex, so it's also a matter of degrees. So in those cases where there is unsimulated sex in non pornographic films etc (i.e. cases where the simulated sex would often be called unsimulated sex), it may be the term 'real sex' could be used, as distinct from more typical movie sex. Unsimulated realistic sex would probably be a better description, but unsimulated real sex doesn't seem completely wrong. (It may be that unsimulated sex in non pornographic films is often more realistic than simulated sex in them, but I expect there to still be some disagreement.)
P.S. As it turns out, we don't actually have 'real sex' as a redirect currently. I haven't created it as I'm not sure where to redirect it to. Unsimulated sex? Sexual intercourse? I should incidentally clarify that if this article is kept, I agree unsimulated sex is the best target. Regardless of people are thinking of sexual intercourse, non pornography like sex or whaever; unsimulated sex probably covers the more important component.
Nil Einne (talk) 12:07, 29 May 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.

Cody Overbeck[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) 17:14, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overbeck is no longer with the Phillies organization so the redirect is not valid. Spanneraol (talk) 18:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Phillies 'pundits' were surprised they got rid of him. He seemed like he had some value. Alex (talk) 18:15, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Spanneraol's reasoning.--Yankees10 19:58, 28 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.

Digital-Crisp Surf Pop[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) 17:14, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Term references a genre of music that supposedly comes from a Rolling Stone article about the band Chester French. There are no references to this genre that do not involve the band. Martey (talk) 04:58, 26 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.

DJMadkour[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. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:33, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article was deleted and I could not find a new suitable target. Kndimov (talk) 01:34, 26 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_26&oldid=1138579382"