Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 January 30: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 75: Line 75:
*** In the search box, when AJAX is enabled, it may be usefull. Also in search results it is more descriptive. For the same reason we have redirection from [[А]] to [[А (Cyrillic)]]. --[[User:Brest|Brest]] ([[User talk:Brest|talk]]) 13:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
*** In the search box, when AJAX is enabled, it may be usefull. Also in search results it is more descriptive. For the same reason we have redirection from [[А]] to [[А (Cyrillic)]]. --[[User:Brest|Brest]] ([[User talk:Brest|talk]]) 13:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
**** We have the redirect [[А]] → [[А (Cyrillic)]] because of [[WP:UE]], not for any of the (IMO unconvincing) reasons you give. [[User:Anomie|Anomie]][[User talk:Anomie|⚔]] 14:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
**** We have the redirect [[А]] → [[А (Cyrillic)]] because of [[WP:UE]], not for any of the (IMO unconvincing) reasons you give. [[User:Anomie|Anomie]][[User talk:Anomie|⚔]] 14:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
***I missed that one, so yes, that one should also be kept. Everything else can go. [[Special:Contributions/65.93.15.80|65.93.15.80]] ([[User talk:65.93.15.80|talk]]) 05:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
* '''Delete asap''' Let think about this for a moment: The English language Wikipedia currently has roughly 3.5 million articles. There are 267 language in the world with more than a million speakers. If create redirects for every single article name in every single language with more than 1 million speakers we'll have close to '''1 billion''' redirects. Even if redirects are cheap, a billion do use considerable webspace and resources. And of course then we need to create redirects on de.wikipeda, fr.wikipeda, es.wikipedia ...... [[User:Travelbird|Travelbird]] ([[User talk:Travelbird|talk]]) 11:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
* '''Delete asap''' Let think about this for a moment: The English language Wikipedia currently has roughly 3.5 million articles. There are 267 language in the world with more than a million speakers. If create redirects for every single article name in every single language with more than 1 million speakers we'll have close to '''1 billion''' redirects. Even if redirects are cheap, a billion do use considerable webspace and resources. And of course then we need to create redirects on de.wikipeda, fr.wikipeda, es.wikipedia ...... [[User:Travelbird|Travelbird]] ([[User talk:Travelbird|talk]]) 11:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
** This is worst case scenario. And it will not happen soon.--[[User:Brest|Brest]] ([[User talk:Brest|talk]]) 13:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
** This is worst case scenario. And it will not happen soon.--[[User:Brest|Brest]] ([[User talk:Brest|talk]]) 13:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 05:07, 31 January 2011

January 30

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 30, 2011

Curmudgeon

Delete - implausible redirect. Slightsmile (talk) 20:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete but not because it's implausible. "Curmudgeon" is a song on the album "With the Lights Out". I suppose a redirect would be better than yet another non-notable song article. In this case, however, the inbound links and the common usage are to the definition of a "grumpy man" and not to this song. (As a side note, I will start repointing the inbound links to the Wiktionary entry.) Rossami (talk) 02:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - useless bot-generated redirect. Really should never have been created in the first place since the target should have been moved to 365gay News a year before the redirect was generated. Now a double redirect following the article move. I Want My GayTV (talk) 05:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fix double-redirect and keep This is a redirect from an alternative capitalisation of a long-standing article title. It's doing no harm and will continue to benefit those who look for the article at it's old title. Thryduulf (talk) 13:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fix double-redirect and keep --Brest (talk) 14:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If entering cBS nEwS O or any other crazy-quilt mix of caps and lower-case leads to CBS News on Logo what is the point of maintaining this specific configuration? Alternate capitalizations may have made sense before auto-suggest and may possibly still make sense in cases where there are legitimate article titles that differ only in punctuation but otherwise they don't. I Want My GayTV (talk) 16:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • But actualy it is not case for this particular redirection, as you can see, people don't like to much to mix caps and lower-case.--Brest (talk) 17:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The idea of bot-generated redirects seems to me to be a truly awful idea. But this one is a reasonable capitalization variant, one of the leading uses for redirects. To I Want My's question above, yes the embedded search engine is case insensitive. But redirects do far more than merely support the search engine. Many other forms of navigation to articles are case-sensitive. We should not assume that just because we use the search engine that other readers all do the same. Rossami (talk) 20:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

13 Април

Redirects from Macedonian language titles for topics that have nothing to do with Macedonia, all created by User:Brest. I've omitted from this list the 21 articles created in the same run that at first glance have some vague possibility of having something to do with Macedonia (region). Anomie⚔ 04:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete almost all except В (Кирилица), which would be the letter in one of the languages that uses it, unless I'm mistaken. 65.93.15.80 (talk) 05:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why not also keep А (Кирилица) then? OTOH, if someone were trying to look up those letters wouldn't they just go to А or В instead? Why would they also type "Cyrillic" in Cyrillic on the English Wikipedia? Anomie⚔ 05:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • In the search box, when AJAX is enabled, it may be usefull. Also in search results it is more descriptive. For the same reason we have redirection from А to А (Cyrillic). --Brest (talk) 13:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I missed that one, so yes, that one should also be kept. Everything else can go. 65.93.15.80 (talk) 05:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete asap Let think about this for a moment: The English language Wikipedia currently has roughly 3.5 million articles. There are 267 language in the world with more than a million speakers. If create redirects for every single article name in every single language with more than 1 million speakers we'll have close to 1 billion redirects. Even if redirects are cheap, a billion do use considerable webspace and resources. And of course then we need to create redirects on de.wikipeda, fr.wikipeda, es.wikipedia ...... Travelbird (talk) 11:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is worst case scenario. And it will not happen soon.--Brest (talk) 13:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I created these redirects just for testing purposes, and I am glad to see this discussion. As you know, here at en.wiki we already have such redirects, and not only for Cyrillic or only for Macedonian. I have an idea to create such redirects with bot, see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/brest-bot. I think that the resources is important but not the most important issue. I think that specific language redirects should not be related only to topics with country where that language is predominantly spoken, or related only to topics for that particular language. These redirects will be useful for Macedonian speaking users, to easily find right information.--Brest (talk) 12:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Macedonian-speaking users should be using the Macedonian-language Wikipedia. Anomie⚔ 14:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why not to use English-language Wikipedia, also? Indeed, in practice they use English-language wikipedia and these redirects will help them in using. Do you think that some-language-speaking users should be using only-their-language Wikipedia?--Brest (talk) 15:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • If they don't speak English, these redirects won't help. If they do speak English, they should look up terms in the Macedonian-language Wikipedia and use interwiki links when necessary or they should look up the articles here in English. Either way, there is no need for us to have redirects from every language for every article. For terms directly related to the language a case could be made that they actually are useful, but those should be decided on a case by case basis. Anomie⚔ 16:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • First you say that redirects should be deleted because have nothing to do with specific country or something with specific region, now I hope you don't think so. If someone do not speak English at reasonable level, really do not have to use English-language Wikipedia. But if someone don't speak English as native language but have reasonable understanding of English, and his native language is for example Russian or Macedonian, you think that they don't need to use English-language Wikipedia, but their native-language Wikipedia? What will happen for articles still not written in his-native-language Wikipedia, do you think that redirects will not help them? If there is policy here to be decided on a case by case basis for every redirection, then I will agree with you that all of these redirects should be deleted, and we don't need to discus any more.--Brest (talk) 17:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • As I said, I think they can either look it up in their native-language Wikipedia and use interwiki links to find the English article, or they can look it up here using English. Redirects for every article for every foreign language are unnecessary clutter. The exception is for cases where a foreign language is the language of origin, for example a video game developed in Japan may (if consensus finds it reasonable) have a redirect from the title in Japanese, but not the title in French, German, Macedonian, and so on. Anomie⚔ 19:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • I respect your opinion. I have my own and disagree with you. Thank you. --Brest (talk) 19:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all unless there is demonstrated potential for confusion or error (and so far, none has been suggested). I find Anomie's comment that "Macedonian-speaking users should be using the Macedonian-language Wikipedia" to be offensively short-sighted. I think that he/she would be equally offended if, when attempting to edit there, a Macedonian editor were equally dismissive. We are trying to write an encyclopedia and help as many of our readers as possible. Some of those readers are multi-lingual and want to contribute to the English Wikipedia (which is still the largest and most filled-out). We should be welcoming their good-faith contributions, not dismissing them out of hand. If a foreign language redirect helps such a reader to find a particular article, more power to them.
    I also note that proposals to ban foreign language redirects have been made several times and have consistently failed. While not every page should have a redirect in every possible language, the ones created above do not create confusion and are not more burdensome or costly than a redirect for a spelling variant. Redirects really are that cheap. Rossami (talk) 20:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sonalee Kulkarni

See discussion at Talk:Natarang SPat talk 04:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is confusion due to two actresses with the same name. The redirect should be replaced with User:SPat/Sonalee Kulkarni. SPat talk 05:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If I understand you correctly you want to create and article on a person called "Sonalee Kulkarni". In that case I'll just be WP:BOLD and make the redirect a page. You can then just copy your text into Sonalee Kulkarni. Travelbird (talk) 11:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Copy pasted content to Sonalee Kulkarni. Thanks for the comment. SPat talk 11:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

METAL DISINTEGRATION

IT'S IN ALL CAPS so it doesn't follow proper naming convention. Further, nothing links here. If such a redirect really needs to exist, it should exist in the proper capitalization. — Timneu22 · talk 03:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep to preserve attribution. If you look at the redirect's history then you'll see the edit summary clearly stating that content is being merged. In these circumstances we don't delete the redriect so the edit history is preserved. It should be tagged as an unprintworthy redirect (as it is) which will exclude it from the search dropdown. Thryduulf (talk) 13:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Makes no sense. IT IS IN ALL CAPS. Move this to the correct capitalization and then delete this. — Timneu22 · talk 19:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, I just moved it to the correct caps. It's now a double redirect so it will be fixed soon. — Timneu22 · talk 19:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep to preserve attribution history (now at both capitalizations). The existence of a redirect is not an endorsement of a title and a redirect is not required to comply with the naming conventions normal to an article. This one is doing no harm and creating no evident confusion. It should, perhaps, be tagged with {{unprintworthy}}, though. Rossami (talk) 20:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2011_January_30&oldid=411106120"