Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 July 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 13[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 13, 2016.

-present redirects[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 complicated. Thryduulf's proposal received the most support overall, so I'm going to enact that, even though there were varying degrees of support for it. That being said, I'll allow speedy unbundled renomination for any "type" where there was genuine disagreement. -- Tavix (talk) 20:00, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These events have already ended and thus -present redirects do not make sense. There are probably many more such redirects that are not listed.Pppery (talk) 21:57, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I corrected the target for the second redirect with this edit.— Gorthian (talk) 23:02, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I removed the fourth War in Afghanistan entry, because it was a duplicate of the first one.— Gorthian (talk) 18:21, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep War in Afghanistan (2001–present); well more than two thousand articles link to it. (I'm sure a proportion of those are in templates, but a spot check revealed mostly in-article links.) (now withdrawn)
Keep War in Afghanistan (2001-present); with hundreds of article links and hundreds of hits per month, this is still heavily used.
As for the others,
This redirect actually have the targets you are wanting to retarget it to, but I got confused about the different types of dash when nominating it. Pppery (talk) 18:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keeping track of all the different dashes around here is enough to make you dizzy! I took the liberty of updating the targets above. — Gorthian (talk) 03:16, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This redirect actually has the targets you are wanting to retarget it to, but I got confused about the different types of dash when nominating these articles. In addition, what if the person looking at List of California ballot propositions 2000-present was looking for a ballot proposition in the 2010s? Pppery (talk) 18:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pppery, see my reply to Thryduulf below. — Gorthian (talk) 02:46, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
— Gorthian (talk) 18:12, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn for War in Afghanistan (2001–present) (and not any of the other dashing or capitalization variants). Pppery (talk) 18:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gorthian: targeting e.g. 2000-present to a 2000-09 article doesn't help someone who is looking for the period 2010-14, which is exactly as likely as someone looking for 2005-09. Pointing them at the index means one click for everyone rather than 3 clicks for some. Thryduulf (talk) 19:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thryduulf, I was thinking of those article links; they're all in the "See also" sections of articles that are about specific propositions in the 2000s. I don't feel strongly one way or another; retargeting to either one will do. I don't think deleting it would be right. — Gorthian (talk) 02:46, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree they shouldn't be deleted, but retargetting to the other one is just as bad as leaving them where they are (particularly when -present covers 3 or more lists, as they eventually will). To find the link in the see also section people have to search to the end of the wrong (long) list first, and not everybody will do that, so I disagree that this is at all helpful in this situation. Thryduulf (talk) 08:35, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I follow your details here, but I get the gist, and I've decided to change "keep" to "retarget" the lists you specified for rail accidents, propositions, and space flight redirects. (Oddly, I missed the space flight one earlier.) I hope my choices are legible for the closing admin, with all the strikeouts! — Gorthian (talk) 21:29, 16 July 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.

New Jersey Turnpike smog accident[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 refine to New Jersey Turnpike#1950s–1980s and create an anchor (which will make the target New Jersey Turnpike#New Jersey Turnpike smog accident). The event described by this title appears to be covered and sourced in the aforementioned section which seemingly nullifies the concerns expressed by the nominator. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 04:20, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No source, not even mentioned in Turnpike article. Tinton5 (talk) 21:09, 13 July 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.

Worldwide Center of Mathematics[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.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect makes absolutely no sense. — Music1201 talk 20:46, 13 July 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.

猫[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 Wiktionary redirect. Deryck C. 12:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know several people have expressed reservation about deleting {{R from unicode}}s, but what can we do with this? The current target has nothing that would be written this way. Non-deletion options:

  1. Some stuff at Neko might be written this way, but I hesitate to redirect a character used in multiple languages to a single language target.
  2. Sometimes single Unicode characters get retargeted to the Unicode block which contains them (in this case, List of CJK Unified Ideographs, part 2 of 4)
  3. Or we could make a terrible disambiguation page with obscure WP:DABMENTIONs like Singlish vocabulary#N, mainly to have somewhere to hang a {{wiktionary}} link to wikt:猫.
  4. Or we could just {{wiktionary redirect}} it

Opinions? 210.6.254.106 (talk) 14:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is precedent here for deleting a unicode redirect when there truly isn't an appropriate target for it. A good example is a few emojis that were deleted last year around this time (eg: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 July 5#👾). I think this is a good example where deleting per WP:R#D1 could be helpful. -- Tavix (talk) 15:04, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this really Unicode, versus a Chinese character? I mean, any letter is also a Unicode character, right? So this means both "Mao" and "Neko"? I'm wondering why it doesn't point to Mao Zedong (cf. Mao) right now. --BDD (talk) 15:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's read māo in Mandarin and neko or byō in Japanese. Mao Zedong's surname is "Máo", which is a different character (毛, which redirects to Radical 82). 210.6.254.106 (talk) 15:59, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. I was looking at "毛澤東" in Mao's infobox and thinking this was the middle character there, but I see that it's not now. --BDD (talk) 16:08, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there's no link for other common Chinese characters like 不, and it isn't a radical like 二. Uses should refer to wiktionary as with the article Z-variant which has the example for 不 as well as 猫. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:11, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Inappropriate wiktionary redirect, no point with WP:CJKV either. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 02:13, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - arguments for deletion are poor. Is this a common query?Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 13:03, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Wiktionary, which looks to have a veritable mine of information. This gets ~1–2 hits a day, so deleting wouldn't help anyone. At first I thought the nom's second option would be best, until I checked that page; for someone who cannot read Chinese, finding a single character is a chore. When I finally found it, and clicked on the link, poof! I was at the Wiktionary page. — Gorthian (talk) 17:28, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to wiktionary — JFG talk 23:04, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect to Wiktionary per Gorthian. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:14, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:58, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect to Wiktionary per Gorthian's well reasoned comment. Thryduulf (talk) 16:04, 14 July 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.

Hahu[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. JohnCD (talk) 21:11, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why "Hahu" redirects to the Ge'ez script, or specifically a section of it. There seems to be absolutely no connection between the two, other than the fact that "hahu" can be written using two Ge'ez characters, but the same is probably true of many other abugidas and syllabaries. Newbiepedian (talk · contribs · X! · logs) 16:44, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. HaHu appears to be one way of referring to this script, after the name of the first two letters - the entire first page of results on a google search for "Hahu" return only entries relevant to the script (and Wikipedia is not one of them). It would be better if this were mentioned in the article though. Thryduulf (talk) 17:05, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The above explanation is entirely correct. As the user who made the redirect, this was exactly why I made the page. The term "HaHu" is used similarly to the English "ABCs". --Varavour (talk) 17:08, 13 July 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.

Mar Augustine Kandathil Memorial Lisie Hospital[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 keep. Clear cut case where one of the purposes of redirects is met, namely when a formal name of a subject redirects to an article at the common name.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:48, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

moved to another name only_nonsense (talk) 08:24, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • strong keep firstly this is the full name of the hospital concerned so it is a likely search term, secondly the article was at this title from 2009 until shortly before this nomination so there will be lots of incomming links from outside Wikipedia as well as the nearly 200 internal ones. Indeed I encourage a speedy keep here to avoid breaking those links for too long. Thryduulf (talk) 14:52, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clear case for speedy keep. Uanfala (talk) 20:19, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep formal name of hospital. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 04:00, 14 July 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.

Coconut (Paraguayan)[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, default to keep in the absence of a blaring argument why this might be harmful. Deryck C. 11:56, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete? This seems to be an implausible search term. We have Paraguayan coconut, which isn't a very common common name in the first place (351 reported Google hits, many of which are about oil from regular coconuts grown in Paraguay). I wouldn't necessarily object to keeping if somebody can suggest an appropriate redirect categorization template for this (I don't think {{R from common name}} is appropriate). Plantdrew (talk) 02:55, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete it's not the most implausible search term I've ever seen, but it's getting at most 5 hits/90 days as far as I can tell which is way below the levels that suggest human interest. Thryduulf (talk) 14:59, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The human interest stands at exactly 3 hits/90 days [1]. Yeah, that's below some intuitive threshold I guess. Uanfala (talk) 20:17, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Having learned more about the new page view stats tool, and per the other comments here I'm changing my vote. I'm not convinced of it's plausibility, but it is getting human interest that suggests it is useful. Thryduulf (talk) 12:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep plausible search term if people are aware that Wikipedia uses parenthetical disambiguators. One real person a month has searched for it in the past year, so it does seem to get some use. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:37, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Thryduulf and Patar knoght's page view stat analysis. This is well into the range of implausibility. -- Tavix (talk) 02:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Tavix: I've reanalysed the page view stats and have come to the opposite conclusion from the one I reached earlier and which you based your comment on. You may wish to reconsider your view in the light of this. Thryduulf (talk) 12:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I stand by my original comment. -- Tavix (talk) 20:49, 21 July 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_July_13&oldid=1088109683"