Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 May 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion | Log

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 12:32, 10 February 2023 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
< May 3
May 5 >

May 4

[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 4, 2015.

Hafsa Sultan

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 May 28#2015 May 28#Hafsa Sultan

Hatice Sultan (daughter of Ahmed III)

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 May 28#2015 May 28#Hatice Sultan (daughter of Ahmed III)

Adam Orth Twitter incident

[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 per Delirium. The relist hasn't attracted any further input, so I'm closing this discussion with the most plausible option presented below. Deryck C. 14:32, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unhelpful redirect because the subject isn't mentioned at the targeted article. Tavix  Talk  02:36, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Adam Orth currently redirects to Adrift (video game). Is the "Twitter incident" what's discussed at Adrift (video game)#Development? --Delirium (talk) 15:30, 27 April 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, Deryck C. 20:55, 4 May 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.

Criticism of the Boy Scouts of America

[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. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:16, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In my mind there is a fine line between a "criticism" and a "controversy". JZCL 16:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. Nominator is completely right: There is indeed such a fine line. However, in Wikipedia, redirects are allowed to traverse that fine line. Still, the visit stats is poor. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 02:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, pace @Codename Lisa:. Wasn't it Winston Churchill who said "the English cannot draw a line in the sand without blurring it"? Articles should be accurate but redirects are here to help people find them, however "wrong" they are, so in principle I am with Codename Lisa, but the stats show there are so few hits for this one, less than one a day (excluding the peak when this discussion opened where it hit 6), that it's not worth keeping. WP:CHEAP, I know, but this seems harmful because people search in different ways and so they can't find what they're looking for if a redirect is in the way. Si Trew (talk) 08:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I would've thought "membership controversies" would be a narrower topic than controversies or criticisms in general, but Boy Scouts of America controversies also redirects to the target page. Especially in Wikipedia parlance, I don't think there's much of a distinction between "Criticism of Foo" and "Foo controversies". Whenever I'm looking for juicy gossip on a page, I check the TOC for a Criticism or Controversies section. --BDD (talk) 14:14, 1 May 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, Deryck C. 20:51, 4 May 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.

Some redirects containing wiki markup

[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. Maybe there's a larger discussion to be had somewhere, but for now, these are causing harm, and there's consensus to delete them. Even some of the pages I bring up to delete them get wonky formatting. --BDD (talk) 14:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These redirects contain wiki markup, which has the potential to break the formatting of pages if linked in a page (such as bolding or italics issues.) Due to the technical issues caused by such titles, titles that contain at least two consecutive apostrophes are now restricted by the title creation blacklist. These redirects all have equivalents without wiki markup which lead to their proper targets; so, in effect, these redirects should be deleted. (Also, each of these redirects do not have any transclusions or histories that need to be kept.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It's fine to delete those redirects, I don't think they are really needed and as you said, there are technical issues related to those apostrophes. PMLF (talk) 20:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. Unneeded, unused and can only see them causing problems if anyone tried to use them.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 20:29, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question What is this nomination actually about? I am interested to have been invited here to comment, genuinely do not care if a redirect from the Draft: namespace lives or dies, but have no clue what this is about. I;d appreciate a ping when someone answers, please. "mine" has but a single apostrophe in it, plus some exciting text below the redirect that is put in automagically nowadays. Fiddle Faddle 21:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. This seems to be some sort of process fault in the "move" arena, since the redirect was created by a process outside my direct control. I imagine that the Move process is invoked by the WP:AFCH script. If that is faulty, something I am unable to judge, please report it. Fiddle Faddle 22:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In case it is, in part, an AFCH fault, I have logged it here. But is this not all part of how page titles are actually italicised rather than anything else? If there is a problem, an underlying problem, curing the symptoms each time they appear is like putting makeup over smallpox signs. Might, for example, {{Italic title}} be the issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timtrent (talk • contribs) 08:16, 5 May 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, it does appear to be the entire mechanism used by {{Infobox book}} et alia, which seem to use {{Italic title}} that looks like part of the root cause of the problem you perceive. So I now have an opinion. 'Keep until the root cause is solved, then fix the individual redirects. And, in addition, if necessary Log the fault with whoever needs to be aware. Fiddle Faddle 08:23, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, so a backend change broke these? (''de facto'' standard was previously a working redirect.) Fix the backend. Inconveniencing both readers and editors (the former because existing redirects will break; the latter because they will needlessly have to pipe things of of consideration for some technical fault) to benefit developers is the wrong optimisation. No indication that any of the previous supporters have engaged brain here at all. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 00:13, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was no "backend change" that I know of. If there was, the backend change probably occurred years ago as wiki markup has functioned as so since at least I have been editing on Wikipedia. Usually, these breaks happen when titles that contain consecutive apostrophes are included in transcluded or substituted templates. As far as I know, since the wiki markup seems to be functioning as intended, there probably never was a backend change, and this situation has existed since probably wiki markup's introduction. Steel1943 (talk) 00:36, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I'm still not seeing the problem here. At the time that I created that redirect, it definitely redirected correctly. If there has been a change to the blacklist such that these titles are prohibited, then that change is wrong and should be reversed. The redirect system should most certainly be able to handle trivial wikimarkup if it eases things for editors and readers, as this did. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do not disagree that these redirects work correctly; that in no way is the rationale for my deletion proposal as they obviously work. However, in my opinion, the harmful technical glitches that they create when linked outweigh their usefulness as functional redirects. That, and does wiki markup work in document writing programs such as Microsoft Word or various other related programs? Well, they don't, meaning (again) that the use of consecutive apostrophes to look up a title that should have text formatting (italics/bolding) is so unlikely that the harm caused by wiki markup issues when linked outweighs their usefulness as functional redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 13:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No. We optimise for readers and editors. "Fixing" bugs in our renderer by breaking working features is backwards. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Right, so removing the redirects allows Wikipedia to be optimized for our readers by not having editors (who are not technically familiar with how wiki markup errors are caused/works) unintentionally render pages (especially article pages) with bad italics/bolding caused by wiki markup these titles can create if linked. Also, using apostrophes in searches to simulate italics/bolding is so unlikely, especially since the apostrophes are not part of the subject's actual title (with very few exceptions such as '') that I really do not understand or agree that their lack of existence will hinder our readers in any way. I mean, for de facto standard, the title appears as de facto standard, not ''de facto'' standard. Steel1943 (talk) 17:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I believe this is a well intentioned discussion, but about the wrong topic and in the wrong venue. I ask that this be closed with the outcome that the closer will raise the issue in the correct place, logging in their closure that they have done so. That there is an issue is not in doubt, but deletion of a whole slew of redirects is not the correct outcome when the issue will happen again and again and again.
I have no idea where the correct place is. This needs a far wiser head than mine. I have no idea whether the underlying "Move" function causes this, or some other mechanism. The nominator has done Wikipedia a great service by starting this discussion, alerting those who have taken part and will take part to an issue. I thank them for this service, though my personal thanks are unimportant. How do we go the extra mile, and who will do it? Fiddle Faddle 08:36, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since I'm asking for the discussion/deletion of these redirects, this seems to be the proper venue. The only other venue to ensure that these redirects get deleted immediately would be WP:CSD; however, since certain redirects with wiki markup, such as '', have no alternate way to appear (since the editor is actually searching for what the symbol represents rather than text that is italicized) are truly useful (see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 November 20#Several redirects that have wiki markup in their titles), CSD is not an option (in my opinion.) Intentional wiki markup in a title is a different story since there are no apostrophes in the intended title, but rather characters that can easily be searched without italic/bolding. Steel1943 (talk) 13:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Fiddle Faddle, in regards to your above statement about "going the extra mile", I believe that was taken care of when titles containing at least two consecutive apostrophes were added to the title blacklist in December 2014. However, just adding something to the title blacklist doesn't automatically delete all existing pages that meet the blacklist criteria. (Otherwise, we would have a lot of attribution lost unexpectedly and improperly.) In your redirect's case, the title was created with the consecutive apostrophes prior to the blacklist restriction being put in place, then you published the draft into the article space while retaining the consecutive apostrophes in June 2014. (The blacklist entry did not exist yet, so there was nothing to stop that move.) The redirect that was created by Thumperward was created in January 2015, after the blacklist entry had been added. The creation of Thumperward's redirect was probably the result of one of two things:

    1) During the first few weeks of January 2015, the title creation blacklist was malfunctioning, probably resulting in Thumperward not seeing the blacklist notification message (template editors, such as myself, or administrators, such as Thumperward, see a warning message stating that a title meets a blacklist entry rather than being prevented from creating the page, which you probably experience instead). I'm assuming that this is what happened since I reported this issue on January 4 2015 and Thumperward created the redirect on January 5 2015. Or...

    2) Thumperward created the redirect, surpassing the warning message that was seen. (As I stated above, I'm assuming that this was not the case due to the title blacklist malfunctioning during the time that the redirect was created.)

    ...Hope this answers your inquiry about if a "root cause has been solved"; as I was the one who requested the blacklist addition, I agree: I was looking for a permanent fix rather than "putting makeup over smallpox". But, when the software that powers Wikipedia fails unexpectedly, there's not much that be done about that (referring to January 2015). Steel1943 (talk) 23:40, 5 May 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.

User:Qualrus

[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 deleted by Shirt58 (see below). (non-admin closure) Tavix | Talk  16:14, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does this User even exist? JZCL 12:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes the user exists (which is why you can press the "user contributions" page on the left side and see their one edit, which was to make this redirect). It has something to do with [1], an 2011 project to redesign the new account system, apparently. I ask some users there about it. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 20:31, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Looking into it some more, it appears some new users got these experimental new account pages, and a link to the Wikimedia project appears in the new user log summary. What this means is that a new user registered and by pure coincidence was one of those given the experimental sign-up pages. That said, keep, since if that's what they wanted, there's no reason to tell them they can't, no good reason to delete it. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 20:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to soft redirect per WP:RFDO#From userspace. If Qualrus really wanted his/her userspace to be redirected to the United Kingdom, that option will still be there, but one would have to actually make that click instead of it happening automatically. That way, there isn't a WP:SURPRISE. Tavix | Talk  20:20, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: All of these outcomes are possible, so more input would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User talk:Qualrus was created (via Twinkle) by the nominator, and is not a redirect. Since this was apparently never an active user, the talk page could be safely be deleted per WP:G7 if JZCL wants to flag it. Ivanvector (talk) 21:50, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you enter user:Qualrus at the time when it was a plain redirect (ie. prior to this nomination), and then clicked on [talk] button at the top of the page, you would end up at talk:United Kingdom, and if you theb pressed [new section], then you'd be leaving a message to a user at an article's talk page, thus making it a harmful redirect -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:06, 6 May 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.

Eighty-Sixth Amendment of the Constitution of India

[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 procedural close. The latter redirect has been converted into an article, with the former retargeted there. --BDD (talk) 13:59, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The target article is List of all amendments, no specific topic related to the 86th amendment is discussed. Also, no potentially useful page history, or edit history. Ninney (talk) 00:09, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: See relisting comments on the 44th amendment discussion below. The same questions apply.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:17, 4 May 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.

Forty-Forth Amendment of the Constitution of India

[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. --BDD (talk) 13:57, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The target article is List of all amendments, no specific topic related to the 44th amendment is discussed. Also, no potentially useful page history, or edit history Ninney (talk) 00:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: I'm not too familiar with Indian government, but the question we need to ask ourselves here is whether the 44th amendment would ever realistically have its own article. If so, it may make sense to delete per WP:REDLINK. If not, the target article is the logical place to have discussion on the amendment, and the redirect would be appropriate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No, the question we have to ask ourselves is if we have Forty-second Amendment of the Indian Constitution or Forty-fifth Amendment of the the Indian constitution. Neither of which we have. So, this is a nonce word to make one article, and would be better served by a WP:PIPE, as indeed would I. Si Trew (talk) 08:35, 9 May 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.

Certainly

[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) 13:55, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not synonymous, WP:NOUN, WP:NOTDIC. 'Nuff said. Si Trew (talk) 15:55, 4 May 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.

보이지 않는 도시들

[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) 13:54, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a Korean topic. Gorobay (talk) 15:22, 4 May 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.

Quietscheentchen

[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) 13:52, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a German topic. Gorobay (talk) 15:15, 4 May 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.

2015 Garland terror attack

[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) 13:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

POV title with little likelihood of being a legitimate search phrase. - MrX 12:33, 4 May 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.

P.O.O.P

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 May 12#P.O.O.P

Chkn

[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) 13:44, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:RTYPO, I think this is way too many letters removed to be plausible. My search brought up things like a file extension, for example. Tavix | Talk  00:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. As a typo, yes this is implausible. As an abbreviation however it is very plausible, formed by removing the vowels but retaining the consonants. Whether it is a useful redirect is a different quesition. Thryduulf (talk) 12:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Yes, I can see this being plausible txtspeak (and possibly twitterspeak with its character limit), although I always spell out words in full. Seems unambiguous, that being said, WP:NOTDIC, and we are not a translation dictionary for txtspeak. CHKN is a song by Ashrae Fax, acccording to gsearch, but presumably not notable. Somewhat absurdly, the restaurant "Chkn-N-Mo" in Spokane, Washington has the website chicken-n-more.com which rather defeats their deliberate "phonetic spelling", in my opinion (http/chkn-no-mo.com is owned by a domain name reseller, http.com). Si Trew (talk) 12:42, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per NOTDIC and to discourage the perpetuation of bad English. We shouldnt accommodate every plausible typo or incorrect variant, at the risk of dumbing down the internet. --Animalparty-- (talk) 14:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Patently English as she is spoke is exactly what I does. But not everyone speaks or was taught or has an interest in languages as I do, and the purpose of an encyclopaedia is to get people to learn stuff, not to whack them on the head if they make a typo (I make loads, anyone can tell you). English is such a widely-spoken language across the world in all kinds of varieties, that we cannot make value judgments like that. (F'rexample, I wrote "cannot" and not "can not", and I am in a minority with that, but insist it is right. "F'rexample", by the way, is in Bierce, one of the most literate West Coast Americans of the late 19th Century, and a man you would be hard done by to accuse of illiteracy.) It is not our job to teach people English. WP:SIMPLE presents things in Simple English but does not seem to be doing too well, because people who want to learn English want to learn properly correct, well-written English. But we have enough trouble with genuine concerns with WP:ENGVAR without making artificial ones. Si Trew (talk) 16:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to being a vague abbreviation that could also be an abbreviation for "checking". Steel1943 (talk) 16:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete mostly per Steel1943 although it is less likely to be a compatible abbreviation for chequing, however that is also a delete argument. Ivanvector (talk) 16:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vague. I've seen a lot of possible targets like OP but was unable to find one that specifically use this acronym. --Lenticel (talk) 00:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see this used in order books, abbreviated menus and various other locations. If I didn't know what it was I would likely wiki CHKN and then get redirected to chicken and spot what I'd missed. There's no better candidate for the page at this time so I don't see the harm. SPACKlick (talk) 14:57, 5 May 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_May_4&oldid=1138580650"