Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 January 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 5[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 5, 2015.

Striped jersey[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) 16:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article Striped jersey was created on 2 December 2014 by User:LesMarinières. It was listed at WP:PNT and I took it, and re-translated it instead of what I believe was a machine translation from fr:Marinière (vêtement). I have tagged the talk page with {{translated page}}, with the approprtiate version info. I have added back the images and links. I have created {{R from title without diacritics}} at Mariniere. I have checked and translated sources. I have augmented at Wikidata. Finally, I move the article after an WP:RM since I had created a redirect that I wanted reversed to put this at its proper title; I then request SPEEDY for this redirect under housekeeping WP:G6.

User:WilyD removed the speedy. But nothing links to it, nothing is likely to: too general a term, WP:RFD#D8, "the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name". You could well think by the name of this creator it might be a WP:PROMO but it seems not, perhaps just a marinere fan. I believe it ended up at this target when created solely because the machine translation translated it thus, but that's a bad translation. I've notified the creator in both bad French and worse English. Si Trew (talk) 23:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as the term is honestly too ambiguous to be helpful as the term "striped" is an adjective that could be used to describe more than one article listed at Jersey (disambiguation), or weak retarget to Jersey (clothing) as the best possible option for a topic on the disambiguation page that could be "striped". Steel1943 (talk) 01:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Steel1943. I was thinking about retargetting this to referee but not all of them wear their iconic striped clothing. --Lenticel (talk) 01:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'd support that retarget if we think it's a common term, but isn't "striped shirt" more common (though I can't find much RS for either)? e.g.
  • "Football: The Men in the Striped Shirts". Time. Letters. 3 January 1969. Retrieved 7 January 2015.
  • Kennedy, Pagan (1 November 2013). "Who Made That Referee Shirt?". The New York Times. Retrieved 7 January 2015. When Olds first wore the black-and-white-striped shirt in 1921, he "received plenty of boos from the crowd, " he told an interviewer.
As you say, it's hardly universal to wear striped shirts to distinguish the referee – for example, Rugby football referees just wear a different colour if a team such as the All Blacks is playing – but that's not important if the term is a common synonym. Referee#Attire does say that "the vertical black and white stripes worn by referees in many North American sports" and later in the sentence "yellow/green/orange shirts" but does not say "striped shirt(s)" specifically. (Umpire redirects to Referee, so that's neither help nor hindrance). Si Trew (talk) 06:43, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've added those refs into Referee#Attire. That doesn't affect this (I think). Si Trew (talk) 15:27, 8 January 2015 (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.

Template:Infobox Yale residential college[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 January 12#Template:Infobox Rice residential college

Template:Infobox Rice residential college[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 January 12#Template:Infobox Rice residential college

Us magizine[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. Natg 19 (talk) 03:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete this redirection. This is a less common misspelling. It's better to direct users to the existing redirection US magazines than to this typo. Stefan Weil (talk) 20:13, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Retarget to List of United States magazines where US magazines also redirects to. Weak since it has capitalization and spelling issues. I'm okay with Delete too. --Lenticel (talk) 00:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. What would be a more common misspelling? Si Trew (talk) 01:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC) That was a cheap jibe, I strike it out and apologise. Si Trew (talk) 01:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Retarget to List of United States magazines. I was thinking if there was a magazine called "US Magazine" with US meaning the United States, e.g. for American troops abroad, but can't find one. The lynchpin is whether "us" means the inflexion of "we", or the United States (I was thinking of You magazine as a parallel), but I suppose it is punning on being both. I note Us (magazine) goes to this R's existing target, Us Weekly, as does US Weekly with the caps US. There's a reference at the target (ref 7) where The Weekly Standard calls it "US Weekly" with the caps: are they related? I presume not since if so they'd be the first to insist they get the caps right. Si Trew (talk) 01:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as misspelling. US magazine redirects to Us Weekly, so this should too. --BDD (talk) 14:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the same reason as BDD, Us magazine would, to me, suggest Us Weekly (in a simmilar manner to Us (magazine). A hatnote regarding the redirect could help, or not. --kelapstick(bainuu) 13:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as misspelling. I think the hatnote is a good idea. I note Us magazine is red. Si Trew (talk) 15:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as both misspelling/plausible redirect and magazine's former name until 2000 when it wasn't a weekly. Nate • (chatter) 15:22, 12 January 2015 (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.

List of Royal Consorts of the the United Kingdom, Great Britain and England‎[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 the second, delete the rest. --BDD (talk) 16:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete. These are redirects from article moves which fixed a typo (duplicate "the"). They are not useful for searching in WP. Stefan Weil (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all except as below per WP:RFD#D5, "The redirect makes no sense". Si Trew (talk) 18:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Attack of the the Eye Creatures, delete all others. AottEC is a common name for the film due to an error on the title card. ONR (talk) 20:36, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I'll go with that. It's not mentioned at the target right now, but here is an RS:
All the rest I search, although WP:V, are I think maybe not WP:RS. tvropes.org has a nice one of the title card at tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Film/AttackOfTheEyeCreatures. @Old Naval Rooftops: either you are a consummate lurker at RfD, or your like bad movies too much... I am not sure whether to salute you or throw you overboard. Si Trew (talk) 22:26, 5 January 2015 (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.

Siddheshwar(Siddharama)[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 the first seven, keep the last one. --BDD (talk) 16:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant redirects. Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 08:58, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Shri Siddharmeshwar. I'm not sure if that's a full name or a title, but whichever it is a plausible search term. weak delete the rest as the missing spaces seem to suggest them not being very plausible, but I'm willing to listen to any contrary arguments. Thryduulf (talk) 11:58, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Siddheshwar has none other means.--333-blue 23:16, 28 December 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) 16:26, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per WP:RFD#D1, "The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine". Si Trew (talk) 23:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think most are through a bout of well-intentioned page moves, with the occasional copy/paste edits (e.g. here. User:Steel1943 seems to have done most of the gnoming here at each of them, judging by their history. Si Trew (talk) 23:14, 5 January 2015 (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.

Swami Ji Shri 1008 Shree Ram Kishor Ji Maharaj[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. There is consensus that redirecting from full titles is useful. The first three have a more sensible target in the person, and the last two are double redirects that should be resolved. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:15, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These redirects are created merely out of devotion. No reasonable person will search these strings to go to the target article. Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 07:29, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all. These appear to be redirects from the full devotional names, and full names always make good redirects (when a suitable target exists, and it appears to here). If someone comes across the full name they will not necessarily know that they must search on only a specific portion. Thryduulf (talk) 11:49, 26 December 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) 16:26, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please note, in case you can't be bothered to hover, I have not piped any of the above, nor added the plural "s": The links at the blogspot article are to those with the plural "S".
While I agree with User:Thryduulf that full names are good, I am not sure that these redirects (or the BLP at Ram Dayal) are notable or from reliable sources. Si Trew (talk) 22:55, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've marked Ram Dayal for WP:A7 at CSD. If that is deleted, some of these redirects will probably fall naturally. Si Trew (talk) 23:01, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment my speedy delete was declined by User:Y with the ec "(decline a7. being the head of the Ramsnehi Sampradaya is pretty clearly a claim of notability. bad nomination.". Since I don't see any claim to WP:N in the WP:BLP article itself, whose references are all WP:PRIMARY, I don't see how it's a "bad nomination". Si Trew (talk) 16:15, 8 January 2015 (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.

Terminology of Final Fantasy VI[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) 15:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Terminology" refers to more that just the "setting" of a piece of media (which is the current section target's name of this redirect.) Trying to expand on this title would probably fall within the scope of the already-existing article Gameplay of Final Fantasy, but then the scope on that page would be too narrow due to the title of this redirect. With this, I believe this redirect should be deleted, probably per WP:GAMEGUIDE. Steel1943 (talk) 01:17, 26 December 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) 16:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I think the FF wikia already does a good job in keeping info about this game anyways.--Lenticel (talk) 07:48, 12 January 2015 (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.

Blackbird (song)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 January 15#Blackbird (song)

The Islamic State (Caliphate)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 January 15#The Islamic State (Caliphate)

The Islamic State[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 Islamic state. --BDD (talk) 15:54, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

this is not the agreed name for ISIL Legacypac (talk) 11:48, 5 January 2015 (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.

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (country)[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. I've tagged this with {{R from non-neutral name}} and {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}. --BDD (talk) 15:53, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

this is an improbable search string and its not a country at all Legacypac (talk) 11:46, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:WilyD removed the speedy with comment "This is a redirect, not a DAB page". How something that is a page that disambiguates is not a DAB page, I am not sure. To be clear: I'm taking (from now on generally) a broad view of what a DAB page is, and redirects with qualifiers in parentheseses for the purpose of disambiguation are, as far as I see it, disambiguation pages. This was a test case (law) and no disrespect to WilyD. Si Trew (talk) 16:31, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So, let's try Delete per WP:RFD#D8, "very obscure synonym for an article name". Si Trew (talk) 16:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation pages are pages that allow readers to choose from multiple possible targets when the (search/wikilink) term is ambiguous. Here there's no ambiguity, so they're redirected to the unambiguous target. WilyD 16:33, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With this particular one, yes, hence my suggestion to delete: a user would have found, on a search, "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" before finding this redirect. But in general the aim of the parenthetical qualifier is to disambiguate between multiple topics sharing the same name. There's a symbiotic relationship, between DAB pages and redirects: but unfortunately redirects are not (often) considered articles under the CSD rules etc., whereas DAB pages are: were a DAB page to have one entry, it would almost certainly be deleted or converted into a redirect. Si Trew (talk) 16:38, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dabs and Redirects are complementary opposites; but they're needed in exactly opposite situations, so one should be deleted when the other should be created, and vice versa. Redirects of ambiguous terms need to be changed to disambigs, and disambigs of unambiguous terms need to be converted to redirects. So you certainly can't hope to apply the deletion logic for one to delete the other. I don't think dabs pages are articles under CSD criteria (though the point's moot - none of the article criteria could be applied to a DAB). Beyond that, relying on the autocomplete function of the search bar is a bad idea, since it doesn't fix wikilinks in articles, and may not function in different browsers/configurations (and really, people have a hard time distinguishing something they wouldn't search for, and something nobody would search for. As far as I know, only Georgia (country) is located like that, but the formatting is common enough it's not surprising that people will search like that (even assume it's a default) but Australia (country)-type redirects are common (where one might assume the continent is the default, or the bird, or the province), and they get used e.g., WilyD 17:28, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All of the examples given are real countries. We would automatically delete a redirect like Red Cross (country) or Boko Haram (country) or Legacypac (country). Legacypac (talk) 19:30, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect is not deleted just because it's wrong. We have loads of "wrong" things in Category:Redirects from misspellings, for example. The test is, is it a likely search term? Does it help people or hinder them in finding what they are looking for? Si Trew (talk) 21:34, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@WilyD: of course I was thinking of the search bar, and various extensions for Your Favourite Browser (they kinda annoy me by being not just case-insensitive but tend to flatten out diacritical marks) but that a lazy user is unlikely to type that all, including the parens, in vain hope there is that exact article. And even if they do, being a Wikipedian who has an idea of how we disambiguate so has a good guess before starting (as has been well argued recently by, I think, Lenticel), they will be disappointed that it is just a redirect to the article they already would have typed if the autobox hadn't held out the promise of better candy. Si Trew (talk) 21:31, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My favourite browser is (of course) lynx, though I don't get to use it much. Checking, I see the autocomplete doesn't work in lynx. There's probably call to make re-directs hideable from the search bar (but the search bar has so many problems I doubt that's high on the list). There's two sets on considerations here - are most readers going to type "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (country)"? No, most will type "ISIS" or "ISIL" (or at least, I'm sure the plurality will choose one of those two). Are users who type "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (country)" looking for the artice at "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant"? Yes, ~100% of them. WilyD 09:36, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is a strong political statement. Legacypac (talk) 07:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep (no policy based reason on deletion) Why in the world would you delete. It is the most common name. If you have issues please read WP:TITLECHANGES, it says; In discussing the appropriate title of an article, remember that the choice of title is not dependent on whether a name is "right" in a moral or political sense. The politics has no say on the matter. Mbcap (talk) 20:58, 11 January 2015 (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.

Islamic State (terrorist organization)[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) 15:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

rejected title Legacypac (talk) 11:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, per WP:RNEUTRAL. Lede of target says "The group has been designated as a terrorist organization by the United Nations [and others]" and various other references in the article back up that claim. Si Trew (talk) 14:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Although the group is recognized as terrorist, "Islamic State" is not accepted. Mhhossein (talk) 11:39, 6 January 2015 (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.

Islamic State (militant group)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 January 13#Islamic State (militant group)

Islamic State (organization)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 January 14#Islamic State (organization)

Islamic State (Caliphate)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 January 14#Islamic State (Caliphate)

Islamic State (Caliphate in 21st Century)[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) 15:43, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

a highly POV and highly unlikely page name - bad redirect Legacypac (talk) 11:39, 5 January 2015 (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.

ISIS (unrecognized state)[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) 15:40, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

this group is not an unrecognized state. Inappropriate redirect Legacypac (talk) 11:38, 5 January 2015 (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.

List of rights-related basic topics[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 withdrawn. --BDD (talk) 19:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteKeep per WP:RFD#D8 "the redirect is a very novel or obscure synonym for an article name" (nobody says to a policeman "I know my list of rights-related basic topics"); WP:RFD#D5 "The redirect makes no sense" (the target is not a list); WP:RFD#D10 "If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject" (it doesn't contain a list of rights-related basic topics). Si Trew (talk) 09:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I note that List of human rights articles by country is a compendium of various navboxes but that does not seem to me to establish a useful precedent either, in that it's not a list, does not list articles that are about human rights records (as the lede says), and is by continent not country. Si Trew (talk) 10:12, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – per Wikipedia's historical list naming conventions. The article that had that title still exists! Keep for discussion archive support and historical link support. There are thousands of links to the old names of the Outlines. There were hundreds of "basic topics lists", and they all got renamed to "Outline of". The entire department was mass renamed several years ago. Before that, these articles' original names were referred to in many discussions by link, and on User pages, and in articles (now mostly in view history). If you get rid of the redirects, those links will all turn red (inactive) and will be rendered out of context. The links should remain active, so that they lead to the outline articles they are referring to. Thank you. The Transhumanist 20:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@The Transhumanist:. I bow to your better memory and change mine from delete to simply a comment. Si Trew (talk) 21:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I go stronger. Sometimes things do need to change and we have to use a Wayback machine, but this is not one of those cases. No harm in it being kept., changing mine to keep (above). Si Trew (talk) 22:02, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Close as withdrawn, please. Si Trew (talk) 22:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. By the way, a new Outline of evolution has been created. I had no idea how much coverage and how many articles Wikipedia had on this subject. We need editors to help spot what's missing. Cheerio. The Transhumanist 22:31, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the very model of a modern major-general
I have no special knowledge in these matters biological
I know a proton, carbon, quark and sometimes have a look at 'em
But gives me genes and chromosomes I have to throw the book at 'em
I'm not too bad linguistically, with French I have a smattering
I thought I knew Hungarian, my wife gives that a battering
Linguistically, mathematically I can survive a bee ess see
But rather be at home and spiel with all this stuff on arr eff dee
(Linguistically, mathematically, he can survive a bee ess see
but rather be at home and spiel with all this stuff on arr eff dee)
In short in matters scientific, if the science's hard enough
I'll have a go but things that grow I think that I would find it tough
Si Trew (talk) 00:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we also have Outline of physics, Outline of astronomy, and Outline of physical science. And if you fancy the game of chess, you might find the Outline of chess very helpful at improving your game. Nice poem, by the way. The Transhumanist 06:30, 6 January 2015 (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.

9-24[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. There are 5 !votes on both sides of the argument, and I don't see a consensus being reached after 3 months of discussion. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 22:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not mentioned at target or talk. Si Trew (talk) 11:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What commercial? Si Trew (talk) 15:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It seems to be a commercial on heavy rotation on US radio [1][2]. The second link (search for "nine") and the edit summary when this was created ("Created redirect; I thought I was hearing "9-24"") both indicate that this is a mishearing of "non-24". I haven't been able to find the audio online after a brief search, so I can't personally speak to the plausibility, but with multiple independent reports I'd say this should be considered equivalent to a common typo. September's stats were higher than average, but there was no spike around the 24th (cf stats for September 24 and [3]) suggesting that people are not using this to look for the article on the date. Thryduulf (talk) 18:22, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This link may be helpful.—Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
and it is Thryduulf (talk) 21:51, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've heard the same radio commercial numerous times; it was the first context in which I'd heard of this disorder, and until looking up the disorder, I thought it was "9-24 disorder" because of the announcer's enunciation. Nyttend (talk) 20:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Isn't this all a bit WP:NOTNEWS, though? (Let alone not WP:WORLDWIDE?) Si Trew (talk) 21:12, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. What matters is the target article is encyclopaedic (which it seems to be), and that this redirect is a way people use to find it (per WP:RFD#KEEP point 5, this is the case). It is completely irrelevant whether people use this redirect because of news coverage, or whether the people using it are only from a certain geographical area. Thryduulf (talk) 21:51, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I can't recall hearing this ad on the radio where I am, but when spoken in an accent from the Southern U.S., I can imagine it. If it turns out that the confusing version of the ad (that sounds like "nine-24") is phased out, as I thought I read in one of the links provided, then I would lean towards deletion, unless people are liable to hear that commercial in the accent I described. But it appears to be useful at least for the fleeting moment. Tinlinkin (talk) 10:50, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Never heard it myself, I do not see how closely it is between his "non-24" pronunciation and "nine-24". I would need good WP:RS on how widespread this sentiment is to be convinced. 野狼院ひさし Hisashi Yarouin 15:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Requiring a reliable source discussing a specific mishearing of a specific radio commercial is massively unrealistic standard. We do not require RS evidence for redirects from typos, misspellings, misnomers or similar and this is directly equivalent to all of those. Yes we should have RS if this were to be discussed in the article, but this is not the article, just enabling people to find what they are looking for and several people have commented that they made this mishearing, and no evidence has been presented that there is a different target that is more likely. Thryduulf (talk) 19:58, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • But we do need to balance those users who have misheard, with those who have never heard it at all (e.g. me and Hisashi) and thus are dumbfounded about why it redirects there when we might be looking for something else. That's essentially my argument for deletion, R's like this can inhibit many readers finding the article they want. It's a balancing act, that's all. Si Trew (talk) 13:58, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ill formalise my !vote by saying it's WP:RFD#DELETE #2: The redirect might cause confusion. Si Trew (talk) 09:54, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Given we have strong evidence that this redirect is useful to people who have heard this commercial, if there are people using this redirect who are looking for something else (nobody except possibly you has commented to this effect), then the correct solution is to either disambiguate it or (more likely) add a hatnote. Deletion in these circumstances hinders everybody and helps nobody, so it is harmful. Thryduulf (talk) 17:01, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete September 24 is the more logical target, so I guess retargeting there would be my second choice. I don't think strange pronunciation in one radio ad is a good reason for this to exist, though. --BDD (talk) 20:45, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @BDD: You might think it is more logicial, but the evidence doesn't agree with you. If people were using this redirect to find the September 24 article then we would reasonably expect there to be a traffic spike to the redirect around the 24th of September similar to the one the article gets (link above). This is not the case, and from memory it is also not the case for almost all other nn-n redirects that were discussed here a couple of months back. Added to that we have several people above saying they find this redirect useful (WP:RFD#KEEP point 5) and nobody saying they were sent to the wrong target, so it isn't actually incorrect. Thryduulf (talk) 16:57, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, we don't want redirects from every weird pronunciation ever to happen once in a radio ad. - Nabla (talk) 12:24, 21 December 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, Steel1943 (talk) 23:12, 21 December 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, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:26, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (this overrides my Delete vote above; it would be misleading for me to strike that out). I am persuaded by User:Thryduulf's argument of 21 December, above, and have added a hatnote to September 24. After all this time the term "9-24" was still not mentioned at the target, so I stick by my reasoning (as WP:RFD#D2 "the redirect might cause confusion" and WP:RFD#D8 "the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name"), but we have to do something pro tem. If eventually we decide on another outcome (delete, retarget or article creation) then the hatnote can be removed. (I've added a courtesy comment to the R.) Si Trew (talk) 09:18, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Years from now, if not months, someone is going to come across this redirect again and bring it to RfD, and everyone is going to think it was ridiculous that this happened based on something as fleeting as a weird accent in a radio ad. --BDD (talk) 14:29, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • So? Right now this is a useful redirect, so it should be kept. If it turns out that in the future it isn't useful it can be deleted then, but deleting it on that basis now is pure WP:CRYSTAL. Thryduulf (talk) 18:09, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that we're supposed to think in the long term, and it's much more likely that keeping this redirect as is will cause more harm than good in the long term. Apart from this radio ad, "9-24" is a completely unlikely misnomer for the sleep disorder, so as soon as the ad stops running (if not before), this becomes harmful. I don't need a crystal ball to see that. --BDD (talk) 15:01, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Except nobody has actually given any evidence to say why this is or will be harmful. At present it is demonstrably useful and the evidence available is that it is not being confused with any other topic - despite repeated unsupported assertions to the contrary. If that changes in the future we can deal with it then, but we absolutely do not unnecessarily hinder people now because of speculation about the future. Thryduulf (talk) 15:09, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"9-24" is a common way of referring to September 24. This is true in the past, the present, and—one can easily extrapolate—the future. If you're actually asking for a citation or something, see Calendar date. I think it's rather incumbent on the people arguing that "9-24" is a synonym for "Non-24-hour sleep–wake disorder" to show that that assertion is true in the past, or will be in the future. --BDD (talk) 15:39, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is a common way of referring to that date, but the evidence I've presented above (twice) shows it is not a common way to search for that date on Wikipedia. I'm not asking for evidence that it is a common way to refer to September 24, but evidence that this redirect is causing confusion for people browsing Wikipedia. So far you have shown that it could be confusing, but have presented no evidence that it actually is, while I've presented evidence that it is not. Thryduulf (talk) 20:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It genuinely caused me confusion, but I have a vested interest because I have gone through every date from January until April to hunt down these redirects, and listed a few that I found particular confusion. I can't present evidence because when someone clicks through an R and gets a WP:SURPRISE, stats.grok.se and all the others do not record how long a reader stayed at the target, only that it was fetched up by the server. So wow, it gets hits, but how many people then click away because it is not what they were looking for, is more difficult to give evidence for. It is not an especially unusual date, although occasionally it coincides with the Autumnal Equinox, depending on which time zone you are in. But the Autumnal Equinox is not very special either, since it tends to occur once a year. I am thinking the way how French Wikipedia still lists dates such as 2003 are always listed like that in infoboxes etc, to no help to anyone as far as I can discern, since "Category:Things that happened in 2003" then just is a pile of clutter of no use to anyone. We decided a long time ago at WP:EN, before my time, not to link dates like that, and for that reason. Si Trew (talk)
  • Delete/weak retarget per BDD's first vote. The arguments presented above have not convinced me that this term can point to one target alone, nor should be disambiguated due to lack of helpfulness to a point where confusion is inevitable. Steel1943 (talk) 20:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Minor point: I only voted once. But I think I see what happened; on my screen too, it looks like Si Trew's second vote (overriding his nominator's statement) was signed by me because of the way the lines worked out. --BDD (talk) 23:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not on my screen. Thanks both BDD abd Steel1943 for sorting it out amicably. Si Trew (talk) 20:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, sorry Thryduulf but the evidence you presented (twice) is that is used in a commercial in the United States. I can quite believe so. I don't see any RS for those, and I checked when this was first listed, you did not present any RS for it, I found a few non-RS for it. I keep changing my mind on this one bu t no evidence has been presented that it is not confusing, and I for one, without any source except myself, was confused. So we have 1 person confused, 0 people not confused, and thus a majority of 1/0= Not a Number. Si Trew (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:32, 22 January 2015
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.

!vote[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. Non-admin close. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Target unrelated to the redirect title. Previously deleted at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 January 4#!vote John Vandenberg (chat) 08:29, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • refine target. Per my comments in the last discussion this should point to where the !'s use as a negation indicator is discussed. That is the lead section of ! and !#Computers, adding a hatnote to where the Wikipedia jargon is explained. That it has been recreated so soon after the last discussion is an indication that this should not simply be deleted - people are evidently looking for this. Thryduulf (talk) 09:29, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per featured article and the like, I will go ahead and add a hatnote to exclamation mark. “For use in Wikipedia jargon, see the [Glossary].”Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC) (IP replaced with username)[reply]
      • I've modified that slightly [4] - references in hatnotes to project space should use the {{self ref}} template. See the template documentation for details. Thryduulf (talk) 22:41, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Now the hatnote exists, the lead section is the best place to target this so keep as is. Thryduulf (talk) 08:57, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have removed that self-ref on Exclamation mark as it would be quite high in the list of worst examples of WP:NAVEL that I've ever seen. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:54, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • And I have restored it so that people looking for exactly that can find what they are looking for. See also below. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thryduulf (talk • contribs) 14:15, 1 November 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]
              • And I have reverted you. We have a discussion here; if others agree with your opinion here, the closing admin can implement it. John Vandenberg (chat) 15:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or redirect. This was not previously deleted. What was previously deleted was a redirect to Wikipedia:Glossary, which was a cross-namespace-redirect (CNR). The present redirect is not a CNR. Instead, it redirects to another Wikipedia article which (even in its lead) discusses the use of an exclamation point for negation.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC) (IP replaced with username)[reply]
  • Delete not an encyclopedic topic. Wikipedia jargon is not generally notable, and definitely not readership material. WP:!vote is all that would be needed. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 11:59, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per WP:NEO. If anyone else made a redirect to promote a piece of their own jargon, we'd delete it without mercy. This was WP:MADEUP by Wikipedians, and its currency in discussions does not make it encyclopedic or a good candidate for any sort of mainspace treatment. --BDD (talk) 14:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except where else but Wikipedia are people going to look to find out what Wikipedia jargon means? !vote is targetted The entire purpose of {{self-ref}} is so that reusers don't include links to our behind-the-scenes content. !vote needs to either be a cross-namespace redirect to a page that explains the jargon, or have a hatnote linking to the page that explains the jargon. Feel free to tweak the wording of the hatnote, but while the redirect points at that page it needs to exist. Thryduulf (talk) 14:15, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • You proposed exclamation mark as a target at the previous discussion (Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_January_4#!vote as the very first opinion, but nobody agreed with that. They decided it was not appropriate. If you think your suggestion needs to be reconsidered, we should notify everyone from that previous discussion that this redirect is being reconsidered...? John Vandenberg (chat) 15:09, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was notified about this discussion, and already !voted above. The whole thing is not very important, but still I strongly believe that Thryduulf is correct. The term "!vote" occurs on hundreds of talk pages, and is very common Wikipedia jargon. But when people see the term, they may not realize that it is Wikipedia jargon, and will therefore search for a Wikipedia article about the term. So why not give them an easy way to find out? Be merciful, people. Wikipedia jargon is often treated mercifully. See, for example, 3RR. It's not a huge deal either way, but I feel there's no special reason here to make Wikipedia user-unfriendly. There is already enough unfriendliness at Wikipedia (to say the least).Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Thryduulf. Until we have a Glossary of Wikipedia terms. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC).
  • Delete Unrelated. --Mr. Guye (talk) 04:11, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Exclamation mark has no mention of this and it should not have one (any sources about "!vote" being a interesting, notourious, case of use of '!' ?) Possibly retarget should there be a decent landing page, as this admittedly is a likely search term. - Nabla (talk) 11:00, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget, since otherwise it's very difficult to find out what this means, for technical reasons. It should read:
#REDIRECT [[Wikipedia:Polling_is_not_a_substitute_for_discussion#Straw_poll_guidelines]] {{R to project namespace}}
because that's where WP:!VOTE goes. There's a link from there to the glossary entry, for completeness. Personally, I came across !vote on a random talk page, and didn't know what the author was talking about. The only way I figured it out was by searching for !vote on Wikipedia. Google and other search engines filter out a number of punctuation marks, so if you search for "!vote", none of the Wikipedia project pages that explain it come up - you get the same results as if you had searched on "vote", which don't shed any light. If you don't already know it's related to Wikipedia, you wouldn't think to search the Wikipedia project pages specifically. I expect most people who don't know what !vote means, probably also either don't know that Wikipedia project pages exist or don't realize the Wikipedia search engine doesn't search them by default. In short, having this cross-namespace redirect is the best hope a lot of people have of looking up this term. This sort of situation is exactly we have {{R to project namespace}}. This sort of redirect is a lot less obtrusive than a whole bunch of hatnotes that link from ABC to WP:ABC, which seem fine to me, so I don't see any reason not to do a cross-namespace redirect here. -- Beland (talk) 23:36, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Beland: I personally would support the option I suggested below (Retarget to Wikipedia:Glossary#!vote) over your aforementioned option since, in my opinion, the purpose of titles in the article space is to help identify the term or title, not explain to the reader how a process of Wikipedia works. Steel1943 (talk) 22:52, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Either of those is fine by me. -- Beland (talk) 08:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 23:15, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and self-ref hatnote the article, per Thryduulf above. This is how we normally deal with these things. As other users have said, it is quite difficult to get WP:NOTAVOTE to appear in a search result for !vote, for technical reasons. The hatnote and redirect combo provides an easy assist to new editors and doesn't negatively affect readers; the deletion arguments presented are unconvincing. Ivanvector (talk) 17:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Wikipedia:Glossary#!vote, which would redirect to an anchor where the term is explained and identified. (I normally don't support cross-namespace redirects, but I honestly do not see this term ever becoming an article or properly targeting anything in the article space.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:48, 31 December 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, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:19, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarget to WP:GLOSSARY#!vote (or maybe WP:NOTAVOTE, to which it prominently refers). I can't foresee any sensible target in article space until this notation for negation becomes more popularly known outside of computer science (as, for example, @ did when email became a popular consumer good). British and American keyboards have an easily-typed if rarely used "¬" or "~" (respectively) at their top left, and these symbols are also common to denote negation, but we don't write "¬vote" or "~vote". The use of "!vote" is just a de facto standard on Wikipedia, and it's right, if ugly, that it jumps across a namespace to explain it.
Wikipedians are recidivists at indecent exposure: we are forever forcing readers see to see under our coats by tagging articles with cleanup tags, reliable sources tags, even – the shock! – {{RFD}} tags. A CNR is a minor offence on the scale. Our rehabilitation would be to put all such tags on talk pages, but over the years consensus seems to have become that, instead, readers are expected to shield their eyes. Si Trew (talk) 11:06, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarget to WP:GLOSSARY#!vote - I for the life of me can't understand why someone thought redirecting it to Exclamation mark was a brilliant idea?, Anyway retargeting to Glossary is IMHO better as then obviously you can see the glossary for related words that you may of been unaware of before. –Davey2010Talk 03:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close as no consensus. Enough, now, three listings and nothing more to say. Si Trew (talk) 21:37, 20 January 2015 (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/2015_January_5&oldid=1141906202"