Wikipedia:Redirects in languages other than English: Difference between revisions
→Examples: spelling; that->than |
|||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
The other problem is the differing meanings that languages give the same spelling. The word [[wikt:dam|dam]], in various languages, can mean [[stable]], [[pond]], [[checkers]], [[price]], and numerous other meanings: linguists call these [[false friend]]s. None of these meanings belong at [[Dam (disambiguation)]], so none would be appropriate as a redirect if English didn't have such a word. |
The other problem is the differing meanings that languages give the same spelling. The word [[wikt:dam|dam]], in various languages, can mean [[stable]], [[pond]], [[checkers]], [[price]], and numerous other meanings: linguists call these [[false friend]]s. None of these meanings belong at [[Dam (disambiguation)]], so none would be appropriate as a redirect if English didn't have such a word. |
||
In addition, having redirects from foreign languages gives readers the impression that an article exists in their native language for the subject of the redirect. This is not always the case. Due to how third-party search engines work, readers could be forwarded to the English Wikipedia without any reference to an article in their foreign language in the event that the article does not exist on the Wikipedia of the redirect's language. This issue can potentially hinder the ability of the article to be created in the Wikipedia of the redirect's language for this reason. |
|||
Finally, the only language we can rely on our editors speaking is English. Often it requires a strong working knowledge of a language to evaluate and understand foreign-language redirects - for example, being able to identify that a Chinese redirect is using the wrong character, or a Romanian redirect has an incorrect diacritical mark that looks almost identical to the correct one.<ref>An additional problem worth mentioning is the accidental inclusion of offensive terms. We wouldn't expect a Chinese speaker to recognize that getting a single letter wrong in ''shot'' results in an offensive word, so how could we expect English speakers to recognize an offensive term in Chinese?</ref> These types of problems are found immediately by all of our users for English redirects, but for foreign redirects, this is not the case. Also, redirects need maintenance, as pages change titles, get merged, or the redirects get re-targeted. We rely on editors to watch for errors on redirects, but this is much harder to do if you don't know the language. |
Finally, the only language we can rely on our editors speaking is English. Often it requires a strong working knowledge of a language to evaluate and understand foreign-language redirects - for example, being able to identify that a Chinese redirect is using the wrong character, or a Romanian redirect has an incorrect diacritical mark that looks almost identical to the correct one.<ref>An additional problem worth mentioning is the accidental inclusion of offensive terms. We wouldn't expect a Chinese speaker to recognize that getting a single letter wrong in ''shot'' results in an offensive word, so how could we expect English speakers to recognize an offensive term in Chinese?</ref> These types of problems are found immediately by all of our users for English redirects, but for foreign redirects, this is not the case. Also, redirects need maintenance, as pages change titles, get merged, or the redirects get re-targeted. We rely on editors to watch for errors on redirects, but this is much harder to do if you don't know the language. |
||
Revision as of 02:06, 23 March 2016
 | This is an explanatory essay about the WP:Redirect § When should we delete a redirect? guideline. This page provides additional information about concepts in the page(s) it supplements. This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. |
 | This page in a nutshell: Redirects from other languages should generally be avoided unless a well-grounded rationale can be provided for their inclusion. |
The guideline for deleting redirects suggests that foreign-language redirects to a topic not related to that language generally should not be kept. This guideline is often the subject of confusion. This essay lays out good and bad examples, and explains the reason for this guideline.
Examples
Examples of appropriate use of foreign-language redirects include:
- Original or official names of people, places, institutions, publications or products (such as Deutschland, Coalición Cívica or El Laberinto del Fauno)[1]
- Manifestations of culture with special significance in areas where that language is spoken (such as Ketjap manis)
- Redirects which support administrative functions such as the merger or movement of content. (such as Aap Ka Himesh, Abax or Affenbrot)
Examples of inappropriate creation of foreign-language redirects include:
- Common words or concepts (such as bodem (Dutch for soil), computadora (Spanish for computer) or עוגיפלצת (Hebrew for Cookie Monster))
- Direct translations where the English (or a language other than the language of the redirect's title) title is the native/original form (such as Non è un paese per vecchi (Italian for No Country for Old Men))
Examples of redirects which may have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis include:
- Topics for which a foreign title is in common use even if that is not the common English, the official or the original name (such as Malines (French for Mechelen))
Rationale
This is the English Wikipedia, and we serve English speakers. Having a large number of unrelated foreign language redirects presents problems for both our readers and editors.
The presence of foreign language redirects creates the false impression that you can navigate the English Wikipedia in another language. If, for example, we had a redirect from Bodem (Dutch) to soil, a Dutch speaker might get the impression that all of our articles have Dutch redirects. This could become more problematic if that Dutch reader searched from Klimaatverandering and found nothing. They might then assume that the English Wikipedia has no article on the topic, when we do.
The other problem is the differing meanings that languages give the same spelling. The word dam, in various languages, can mean stable, pond, checkers, price, and numerous other meanings: linguists call these false friends. None of these meanings belong at Dam (disambiguation), so none would be appropriate as a redirect if English didn't have such a word.
In addition, having redirects from foreign languages gives readers the impression that an article exists in their native language for the subject of the redirect. This is not always the case. Due to how third-party search engines work, readers could be forwarded to the English Wikipedia without any reference to an article in their foreign language in the event that the article does not exist on the Wikipedia of the redirect's language. This issue can potentially hinder the ability of the article to be created in the Wikipedia of the redirect's language for this reason.
Finally, the only language we can rely on our editors speaking is English. Often it requires a strong working knowledge of a language to evaluate and understand foreign-language redirects - for example, being able to identify that a Chinese redirect is using the wrong character, or a Romanian redirect has an incorrect diacritical mark that looks almost identical to the correct one.[2] These types of problems are found immediately by all of our users for English redirects, but for foreign redirects, this is not the case. Also, redirects need maintenance, as pages change titles, get merged, or the redirects get re-targeted. We rely on editors to watch for errors on redirects, but this is much harder to do if you don't know the language.
Notes
- ^ "Original" is meant only to contrast with the English name and is not intended to force a particular choice in areas where the "official" or "original" name is open to interpretation. All notable variants would generally be acceptable redirects. For example, Serendib (Arab) and Ceylon (British) are appropriate redirects to Sri Lanka (Tamil). Strictly, neither names are "original", but they have been historically recognized.
Likewise, historic names that were once in widespread use are acceptable. For example, Mazaca (original name), Eusebia and Caesarea (name during the last centuries BCE and first few centuries CE) and Kaisariyah all appropriately refer to Kayseri. - ^ An additional problem worth mentioning is the accidental inclusion of offensive terms. We wouldn't expect a Chinese speaker to recognize that getting a single letter wrong in shot results in an offensive word, so how could we expect English speakers to recognize an offensive term in Chinese?