Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 January 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 8[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 8, 2016.

Unglue.it[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 January 15#Unglue.it

Xunan[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 discussion below reached a rough consensus that this isn't a helpful foreign-language redirect. Deryck C. 23:22, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's unclear what this refers to or its relation to Rhee. I tried looking for other places to point it; it's the name of Hunan in some other languages, but none that I could find that would satisfy WP:FORRED. When this was created, Unan was also redirected to Rhee's page. I've retargeted that to National Autonomous University of Nicaragua, where UNAN already redirected. I also examined the target article as it stood when both of these redirects were created, but couldn't find an answer there either. BDD (talk) 20:48, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question can our Chinese speaking editors confirm whether Xunan is a plausible variant/misspelling of Hunan? --Lenticel (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not; no Chinese speaker will misread the first character as "Xu", and "H" and "X" are totally different sounds in pinyin. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 03:31, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to IMDB, Xunan is the name of a 1983 movie (that probably doesn't meet our notability requirements). It also shows up in search engines as a moderately uncommon first name. The best (least bad) source I could find linking Xunan as an alternate for Hunan was this article in the Azerbajani version of Wikipedia. There is a Xunan Village in Baima, Hunan.
    I'm not sure where all that leaves us. Maybe convert it to a disambiguation page? There's not a lot of existing "Xunan" pages in the English Wikipedia to support it yet. Rossami (talk) 16:00, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The film isn't listed at List of Chinese films of the 1980s, but it looks like a lot is missing from there. Maybe if we have an article on the director? Failing a way to incorporate the film, just redirecting to Baima, Hunan would work, since populated places are automatically notable. --BDD (talk) 17:48, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's unclear what this refers to or its relation to Rhee - according to Korean Wikipedia one of his alternative names was Unam 雩南. (Rhee's English article doesn't even mention this name, nor is he listed at UNAM (disambiguation).) If you pronounce that name in Mandarin it's either Yúnán or Xūnán (the first character is a bit obscure, plenty of dictionaries don't even list the "xū" reading for it, but Wiktionary does, so I'm presuming that's where the creator got it from). In any case this should be deleted per Wp:FORRED; users are best served by seeing the search results, which contain partial matches for things which are actually called "Xunan" in English. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 03:31, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vague at best. Perhaps we can argue that this is a WP:REDLINK issue since the movie might turn out to be notable. --Lenticel (talk) 00:41, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I speak Chinese, and cannot think of any plausible WP:FORRED usage for this target. I agree with IP 210 in that the pronunciation of "Xunan" and "Hunan" is very different in Mandarin Chinese. sst✈ 12:59, 15 January 2016 (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.

Undeserving poor[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) 20:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is another interesting Neelix redirect. The article for Underclass mentions (in passing) the concept of desert with respect to economically disadvantaged communities, but I think this redirect ultimately does more harm than good by perpetuating the notion that disadvantaged communities are undeserving of assistance. Right now, I think this is both confusing and offensive; this could just as easily target Desert (philosophy) or Just-world hypothesis. If someone wants to create an article about the concept of moral desert and economically disadvantaged communities, that's fine by me, but this redirect should be deleted. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 07:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete. While I can see the potential for an article discussing the concept of undeserving poor, a redirect to underclass is not it. I'm not sure that anything we do currently have is better, but I could be persuaded otherwise. Thryduulf (talk) 13:53, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to encourage article creation. The current redirect is offensive. Legacypac (talk) 14:42, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Offensive to whom? It seems like a positive sentiment, if NPOV. --BDD (talk) 15:16, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think Legacypac interpreted the statement as poor people who didn't deserve something as opposed to people that did not deserve to be poor.--65.94.253.160 (talk) 06:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as Legacypac says, there's a legitimate article to be written here but this redirect is not it. To answer BDD's question, it's offensive because "undeserving poor" is a specific term for people who have voided the right to the welfare benefits provided by the state or charities (what used to be referred to as sturdy rogues), whereas underclass is a reference to the poorest section of any given society; the implication of the redirect is that poor people have themselves to blame, and don't deserve sympathy or help. ‑ Iridescent 16:07, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks for clarifying. I was assuming that they were just being considered undeserving of their lot in life. --BDD (talk) 16:11, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:REDLINK as above. Unless this can be salvaged as a redirect to untouchability, but I don't think that's the right meaning. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:28, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vague. What are they undeserving of? Their lot in life or external help? --Lenticel (talk) 00:44, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vague. Steel1943 (talk) 02:05, 9 January 2016 (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.

Uploading and Downloading[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. There isn't really a specific CSD for such items, but I think WP:IAR covers it. I routinely delete variants like this after closing an RfD; it's just so unlikely that there wouldn't be consensus to delete these just days after there was consensus to delete Uploading and downloading. As always, contact me with concerns. --BDD (talk) 15:22, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 December 26#Uploading and downloading was recently closed. However, it forgot two redirects that should have been included: "Uploading and Downloading" and "Uploading & downloading". GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 05:40, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per the arguments at the previous discussion and WP:XY. Thanks for following-up and nominating these! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 07:32, 8 January 2016 (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.
  • I guess this falls within WP:G6 "uncontroversial maintenance". As closing admin of that RfD I agree that deletion of these two redirects is implied by the outcome of it. Deryck C. 21:49, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. You're probably right about G6; it's very much like a {{Db-xfd}} situation. --BDD (talk) 17:50, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

12817Federica[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'll tag these with {{R from modification}}, which will also mark them as unprintworthy. My guess is that the Gracekelly stub was created partially because redirects tagged for RfD get treated as articles and are easier for less experienced editors to edit, but this can be revisited if these redirects prove problematic. --BDD (talk) 20:07, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 12817Federica. Of the 19,585 minor planets on Wikipedia, 0 follow the convention of missing a space between the number and the name. However, 17 redirects, out of ~16,000 redirects, make this exception. Furthermore, this is not a noteworthy minor planet (12817 Federica (with a space) is also a redirect to a list), nor is this a reasonable typo to account for via redirect.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  05:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Creator is neutral (Change of opinion: see comment later in this discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 21:29, 10 January 2016 (UTC)): When I created this about 3.5 years ago, this redirect targeted an article that had the same name but with a space. Also, I, for some crazy reason, back then thought that new CamelCase redirects were useful. I really didn't know that this was actually an old way titles were done before spaces were technically implemented on the site. I can see this redirect's usefulness in the event Wikipedia decided to go back to this style for whatever reason, or if somehow Wikipedia's software goes back to an old version for some reason, but I really don't see that happening. In fact, at first, I wanted to tag these for WP:G7 deletion, but since it seems that Paine Ellsworth had a hand in redirecting the former articles to some sort of list page, so they ended up having some sort of hand in the redirect's current state. Steel1943 (talk) 07:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I disagree that this is an implausible modification of 12817 Federica, as readers leave out spaces on many occasions while they search for asteroids and such. Strictly speaking, this is not "CamelCase", but a modification of the original article's title, which was deleted and redirected with this edit in April 2015. That made this modified title a double redirect, which was then fixed. This is a harmless repaired double redirect that can aid searches. Happy New Year! Paine  13:16, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • But these redirects are technically CamelCase. CamelCase just requires that all words and characters in a title are pushed together, removing the spaces. That has happened with these. Steel1943 (talk) 21:07, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might just be splitting hairs, but I see nothing in the CamelCase article that equates unicase numerals with medial capitals, do you?  Paine  12:22, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Paine Ellsworth: Eh, it's sort of "toe-mae-toe, toe-mah-toe" situation, I guess. Either way, it's a modification of some sort. Steel1943 (talk) 21:24, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Paine. Thryduulf (talk) 13:56, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There are ~16,000 minor planet redirects, and only 17 of them (10 listed here) are missing the space, creating an arbitrary group of exceptions to the minor planet article naming convention. If they're so useful, shouldn't we have made the ~16,000 others?   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:22, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Admin note I've merged these different nominations, which all had essentially identical comments so far (the nominator and Paine referred to each item in their comments for each discussion). Please let me know if anyone finds this problematic or if I've overlooked anything, but these seem to have the same issue, and should be dealt with consistently. --BDD (talk) 15:14, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some support. I don't see any point in keeping them to improve search. If I start typing either the name or the number or a combination of the two it popsdown at least one correct link to take me to the redirect target page in addition to the above noms. I don't think they are needed for that. The only reason to keep these redirects is to preserve "What links here." If those are cleaned up I would be fine with removing them as unnecessary. In general I think that new redirects should use the same convention as the majority and this style should be discouraged. Eventually these should be "cleaned up" to maintain consistency. If I were to start seeing search results with the missing space is would cause me to wonder if I should change my search entries to find what I'm looking for. --mikeu talk 16:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as harmless modifications that go to the right target; per consensus that existence of "bad" redirects does not encourage creation of more "bad" redirects and is thus not a reason for deletion (not that it was given as one, just saying). Per Payne. Technical note: I've noticed that the search box skips some redirects but doesn't seem to be consistent on which; this one comes up but I assume that's from the Rfd header. Is there an rcat that controls this behaviour, or could we do such a thing? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:33, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as useless noise. Praemonitus (talk) 23:44, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Praemonitus and Wiki already has 15,000 "properly numbered and named" asteroid re-directs to list articles. -- Kheider (talk) 00:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nuke 'em Pointless and unlikely search term. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:40, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. They are not harmful and meet none of the deletion criteria for redirects. While we do not preemptively create redirects with typos, once they have been created there is absolutely no benefit to the project from deleting them. Redirects really are that cheap. Rossami (talk) 16:06, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they're cheap, but they're a nuisance to those maintaining the categories, articles, and redirects. Without these few errant redirects, all minor planet redirects are treated as potential articles which may one day achieve notability. We (WP:AST) operate on them with this assumption, with category maintenance, and comments such as this, etc., which are not intended for redirects which will never be reverted into an article.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  16:31, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They are cheap, but in this case they are harmful. There is, literally, an astronomical number of redirects and articles to maintain and manage for asteroids/minor planets. Crap redirects screws up bot maintenance, categorization efforts, etc. and need to be handled manually. We do not need this extra work for pointless redirects. Nuke 'em. They serve no purpose. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument on the surface would make me change my !vote if I understood it better. You call these a "nuisance" and give the reason that they will never be reverted into articles as the spaced redirects might someday be. There are literally millions of redirects on Wikipedia that will never be articles for varying reasons. So I don't understand why these few mod redirects have become such a nuisance, when all the others are no nuisance at all. Perhaps you can elaborate?  Paine  12:36, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The reasoning for these deletions is unique (as far as I know) to WP:AST due to the large number of bot-created articles back in and around 2009; see this long history. I don't believe the general guidelines/practices apply here, as they would for the typical (or just any other) redirect on Wikipedia, nor should the outcome of this RfD set any sort of precedent which could apply outside WP:AST.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  20:17, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your candor! I am an astronomy lover, yet I've never felt myself technically competent enough to actually join WP:AST. I am very much in awe of the project's record of article improvement. The only reason I became involved with these redirects has to do with various page moves and bot-fixings of double redirects that resulted in unsynchronized talk pages to their subject pages. I've restored several of these sync needs, so I'm in the edit histories of those pages. I agree with you in principle; however, these are only ten redirects of how many? Their creations suggest that they are helpful to someone just like any other modified title, whether it be plurals, other capitalizations, typos, and so on. If these ten of all those many others present a problem for the members and bots of the astronomy project, then that must be weighed against the editors who will have the rug pulled out from under them if these are deleted. If the main nuisance is to the bots, and the addition to these redirects of the {{nobots}} template is appropriate, then that may help some. Thank you again, and Happy New Year! Paine  22:18, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rossami, I hope you would NOT recommend that Wikipedia create 455,000 re-directs for all numbered asteroids as asteroids numbered above 10,000 almost always point to a very generic list article. This is a maintenance concern as all asteroids were given notability prior to 2012. -- Kheider (talk) 18:16, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per my following opinion in regards to the nominator's response to Paine Ellsworth above. Wikipedia is for all readers; if it is plausible, then it is useful to someone. The fate of the usefulness of a space separating two words as a possible typo cannot truly be deemed useless or problematic by the redirect's target's subject matter-related WikiProject. Steel1943 (talk) 21:29, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a plausible search term, akin to a misspelling. Allowing this one to exist doesn't mean we should create equivalents for all other asteroids. I don't buy the argument about redirect maintenance - there's very little (if anything) to do in the way of maintenance, and 16k redirects needs a bot to do anything sensible anyway so a few extra entries makes no difference. Modest Genius talk 14:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural note - while this discussion was happening, someone expanded 9341Gracekelly into a stub, which due to the limited content available was actually more of a stub about Grace Kelly than about the asteroid. I've trimmed it. I don't know much about the WP:AST standards as to whether this is worth keeping, it should be moved over 9341 Gracekelly if so, otherwise whatever happens here should apply to it as a redirect. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:54, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yet another problem arising from having these redundant, unnecessary redirects...   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  21:09, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two issues are not related: Ivanvector outlined a possible solution to what could be done to "resolve" the stub issue if it is placed at the wrong title ... if need be. Steel1943 (talk) 21:42, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, it's hardly a problem at all. If it's decided to keep the stub, then we move it to the right title, otherwise we do whatever this thread says to do with the redirect. Easy peasy. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:53, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure this is the correct place to have the discussion, but for me that stub fails WP:NASTRO. The only source is a JPL catalogue entry. It should be redirected to the relevant list section. Modest Genius talk 23:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I figured as much. Before I trimmed it there was a long run-on sentence which continued with more details about Grace Kelly and various shows she was in, but it was completely irrelevant. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:07, 15 January 2016 (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/2016_January_8&oldid=1146029266"