Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 February 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 3[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 3, 2014.

Alarcon Hills[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. WJBscribe (talk) 16:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Target is a disambiguation page; redirect does not appear to have anything to do with any topic on the disambiguation page. bd2412 T 14:52, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

  • delete. Google tells me that this relates to a parody of The Wizard of Oz (whether book or film I haven't investigated) about which Wikipedia has no information: The term appears only in a signature at Talk:Del Amo Fashion Center and in what appears to be a signature test at User:PerryThePlatypusFan/test (user:PerryThePlatypusFan is the creator of this redirect). Thryduulf (talk) 15:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete To keep this we'd have to have some useful content at the target (which is fixable) and also some very minor level of notability about the topic. Although this fanfic does appear to exist, it's so sub-notable that it doesn't even warrant a footnote here. If Perry wants to use it in their sig, then I'd suggest a piped link instead. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:48, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. The second target I get off Google Search is The WIzard of Alarcon Films, from wikia.com and then a load of links from Alarcon, a company, which presumably is not yet notable (Alarcon is a DAB page) but but they build golf courses in California and other stuff like that. Si Trew (talk) 22:16, 6 February 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.

Цари́ца[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) 17:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not used; stress is not a standard part of Russian graphic and is unlikely to be inkeyed, there is царица. Ignatus (talk) 08:56, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - the stress is presented in the Russian article see, and the link obviously sending readers to what they're looking for. WilyD 10:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is not a likely search term for English readers; it has an article at RU:WP and all the Interwiki links are in place; there is no need for this R at EN:WP. The purpose of {{R from alternate language}} is to add likely search terms from readers at EN:WP who may have found a spelling from an external source. But it is far more likely for an English reader to know "Tsarina" than its Russian/Cyrillic. All the Interwikis are correct and there is an article on Russian Wikipedia, there is no need for this to be here. I made a proposal similarly to create an R, at WP:PNT a few months ago, and was told quite politely that that is not the purpose of {{R from alternate language}}. Царица should go also by the same reasoning, I have created an RfD for that. Si Trew (talk) 11:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep both per WilyD. These redirect are not incorrect, misleading, in the way of content, ambiguous, or otherwise harmful so there is no benefit to deletion. Given that both have existed since 2008 there is a high liklihood of external links and bookmarks, etc. so deletion would negatively impact the project. No possible justification for deletion in these circumstances. Thryduulf (talk) 15:12, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thryduulf, they are incredibly unlikely search terms for an English speaking audience without a cyrillic keyboard layout.
After I post this I shall ask User:Jac16888 to contribute to this discussion. Jac is an enormously goood and prolific contributor at WP:PNT. I think it was Jac that basically gave me the opinion these are not appropriate uses of {{R from alternate language}}, but I cannot recall which article it was and a search through my contributions on WP from September 2013 onwards doesn't help (but I imagine it would be later than September 2013) and a Google search into WP doesn't help. I could be entirely faulty in my memory for it being Jac16888 who gave the opinion at PNT and I can't for the life of me remember what exactly I suggested to redirect, but I think' it was.
The article exists in RU:WP; someone searching externally will find it at RU:WP. How likely is it that someone will type in the Cyrillic title and prefer it to be in EN:WP rather than RU:WP. How often do you switch alphabets in the middle of reading something? It is just bizarre to expect it to be searched for on EN:WP. I sometimes switch keyboard layouts when I am translating but I don't switch alphabets midstream. Si Trew (talk) 01:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
and RU:Цари́ца appears to me to be a DAB page (I don't speak Russian), so why should it have a different kinda target in EN:WP from what it has in its native language? It's just bizarre. Si Trew (talk) 02:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Deliberately seeking out people to comment in a discussion because you believe they'll support your position is prohibited (see WP:CANVASS). That they gave you a wrong-headed idea is a good reason to stop listening to them, not doubling down on a bad decision. We're writing an encyclopaedia; an important part of that is being able to find what you're looking for. Anybody searching for Цари́ца wants to be sent to the Tsaritsa article; why would we want to deny them that? Tsaritsa is also a fairly obscure term, even a reasonably fluent speaker of English couldn't be expected to know it (I sure as shit didn't, and I'm a native speaker, for instance). It's very plausible that a reasonably fluent in English native Russian (or nonnative Russian who's only familiar with the term in Russian) would search the term. Every native Russian speaker I know (admittedly, only three) uses a Cyrillic keyboard, and code switches between speaking Russian and English like mad. I could certainly see if they were already browsing the English wikipedia (very plausible, since they are all great English speakers, living in an English-speaking country, so the coverage here is likely to be better for a lot of things relevant to their lives, might be interested, but not know such an obscure English term, search for the term here, and instinctively write it with the accent. But that still misses the main point: nobody has provided an answer to the question: "What benefit does the encyclopaedia derive from deleting the redirect?" - I can only conclude that the reason for that is deleting the redirect provides no encyclopaedic benefit at all - it only makes the encyclopaedia less reader friendly (if only to a small fraction of readers - though sixth most popular website on the internet × a small fraction of users is still a lot of people for us to be dicks to for no reason at all. WilyD 09:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wily, I did not WP:CANVASS. I was hoping someone would be able to contribute an expert opinion, and I specifically named whom and you can look at my request at his talk page. There is a difference betwen canvassing and asking someone to contribute to a debate that they know something about. As it happens Jac hasn't, but it is not out of order to ask someone to contribute to a debate. That is not canvassing, I didn't ask 100 people, and I said specifically on this section who I would ask. I would hope they would come and give their opinion, not necessarily mine Si Trew (talk) 20:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WilyD, topic is a Russian-language subject, and the Russian-language article found uses the form presented in the redirect. -- 70.50.148.248 (talk) 06:07, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We can always add redirect documentation to indicate why it exists (my proposal for that at Draft:Template:Redirect documentation) -- 70.50.148.248 (talk) 06:07, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If Russian-language article contained IPA, should we have it also used as redirect? Ignatus (talk) 15:09, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, because the IPA is not related to the article topic and so your comment is a straw man. Thryduulf (talk) 00:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Si Trew. Completely unnecessary. No amount of imaginative pettifoggery can conjure up a realistic potential user for this. — Scott • talk 20:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a Russian language redirect to an article about a Russian topic. Merely being a less common way of writing it is hardly indicative that nobody will use it. Colour not the most common way of writing Color among English speakers, but one would hardly nominate colour for deletion on those grounds. Why blatantly misrepresent facts here to support a deletion that only accomplishes making the encyclopaedia worse for readers? WilyD 10:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • But the Russian language article on this Russian language topic is at RU:WP. It is not the purpose of a redirect (that shows up on external searches) to divert native Russian-language speakers into English Wikipedia; that is why this redirect is wrong. Si Trew (talk) 21:30, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I'd have to disagree with Ignatus and agree with WilyD here. Stress is used as part of Russian orhography. As to the validity of the link, then it's generally accepted that we have a valid use case for providing foreign language words as redirects, especially when they're credible as links from other contexts where linking the "native" language is more appropriate. The "It's not in use today" argument is a always a bad one. Is it credible as a redirect? In this case yes. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment; another straw man: nobody above argued whether it was in use today or not. I haven't even checked the stats and nobody here has quoted any stats, that falls at the first hurdle. Si Trew (talk) 22:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, although I think accents are only used in definitions in dictionaries, encylopedias and the like, it's still quite plausible that a native speaker of English browsing a Russian text would encounter this and want to look it up. Siuenti (talk) 13:09, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Tsaritsa is a perfectly understandable term for anyone who knows what a Tsar (which is of course the same word as Kaiser or Caeser and so on); that is an understandable search term for an English-speaking audience. I can't speak a word of Russian and I have to translate back in my head the Cyrillic alphabet in my head; this is why it is an unlikely search term in EN:WP. What dictionaries do or don't is a different matter; when I translate from French I add tags to the redirects for R from alternate language and make R from alternate capitalisation etc, and for example {{R from title without diacritics}} if it goes keep is a better tag to mark it without the stress marks. Si Trew (talk) 21:22, 6 February 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_February_3&oldid=1138579584"