Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 June 3

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 70.49.80.26 (talk) at 01:40, 4 June 2014 (→September 11, 2011 attacks). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

June 3

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 3, 2014.

September 11, 2011 attacks

This was previously kept at RfD under the presumption that "2011" was a typo for "2001." I submit that it could just as easily be a typo for "2012" (i.e., September 11, 2012 attacks). In fact, it's very easy to image someone in the future trying to remember when the Benghazi attack occurred and being off by a year. Thus. I think it would be best to retarget to September 11 attacks. BDD (talk) 23:50, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Purple-headed

This is a slightly different case from the one below. Here, the starling is the only thing "purple-headed" could reasonably refer to, but there's no evidence the species would be referred to as "purple-headed" alone. It definitely shouldn't've been created, but if others thing we should apply RfD zen and keep it, I can deal with that. BDD (talk) 21:25, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dark-throated

Like Red-knobbed et al., Pale-breasted, and Spot-winged, these parts of bird names don't lend themselves to dabs, due to WP:PTM, nor is there evidence of primacy of the species these point to versus other "Dark-throated" and "Black-ringed" topics. --BDD (talk) 21:21, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The price is wrong, bitch

Not mentioned at target article. Launchballer 17:16, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Being mentioned is not a criteria. In event someone enters that quote, they will get the implicit information that it is from Happy Gilmore. Neither harmful nor new (6 years old), so keep. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:37, 4 June 2014 (UTC).

Лазурный поползень

Delete. Not especially Russian. Gorobay (talk) 17:22, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Indeterminate. @Gorobay: Hey Gorobay. Deletion nominations of any stripe should contain a sufficiently transparent rationale to understand the grounds upon which deletion is sought; we don't need an essay but your nomination is a cipher. I suppose you might be saying they're mistranslations, or you might be saying the Cyrillic characters are not formed properly, or that they're in some sort of pidgin, or as a native speaker you don't recognize them... or something else. I am the creator of the redirects but speak no Russian at all nor can I read any Cyrillic, so I must rely on people like you; I might very well agree they should be deleted if I knew what the problem was. In creating both, I relied on Avibase, the World Bird Database, which provides names of birds in a smattering of languages, and copied and pasted the names from there (1, 2). Both redirects when searched through Google show they are used as the title of these birds at least by some (though that may be incestuous – they may be all compounding the original error). Also, regarding the first name, at the Russian Wikipedia, they provide the redirect title I used as the red link for Sitta azurea, the Blue Nuthatch: see ru:Поползневые#Систематика, which indicates it may be the proper title. By the way, if these are indeed "bad Russian" and should be deleted, it would be great if you, as someone fluent (I assume), would track down the correct bird names in Russian.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t know Russian, and as far as I know the terms are good Russian. “Not especially” is a bit of jargon I use at RfD. You are right: its meaning is opaque; sorry for the confusion. This is what I mean: These nuthatches have nothing to do with Russia; i.e. they are not especially Russian (or Vietnamese, or Polish, or any of the other languages you have made redirects from). There is no reason to create redirects from languages unrelated to the subjects of their target articles; see WP:FORRED. Moreover, there has for a while been consensus that such redirects should be deleted. Gorobay (talk) 01:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, please do state your reasons like that in future nominations. You're right that neither has any direct connection with all of the languages for which I provided redirects, though Przevalski's Nuthatch does not have "nothing to do with Russia" – as noted in the article, "The common name and Latin binomial commemorate the Russian explorer Nikolaï Prjevalski, who discovered the species in 1884" as well as that the bird "was first scientifically described in 1891 by Russians Mikhail Mikhailovich Berezovsky and Valentin Bianch" but this is rather neither here nor there. I am wary of noting anything is "just ... an ... essay", but let's be clear that this essay's pronouncements are not the product of a rock solid consensus following in the wake of a well advertized discussion – and I disagree with that essay, or more precisely the bounds of the list of topics it states are exempt from its ambit: "Original or official names of people, places, institutions, publications or products".

One problem with this terse essay is that it provides no explanation whatever of why it has focused on these exemptions; what it is about them that makes them good targets for foreign language redirects, as opposed to other thing?. Should species names be added? Why yes and why no? In fact, the page does not provide any guidance, bases, rationale of when, where and why we should avoid creating foreign redirects, and when we should not. The very fact the page is mostly inchoate is a good reason to not follow it reflexively. I do not want to go too far afield and post my reasons here that properly belong at a Village Pump or other discussion but it seems that at least one connection between the "exemptions" is that they are all tangible and unchanging things (all the target of fixed noun titles)—not ideas or philosophies or other moving targets with lots of gradation and opportunity for confusion as to whether one article topic is equivalent to another language's—which species would fit right into.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:56, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Fuhghettaboutit: Comment yeah, everything has to be argued case by case: it would be a lot easier sometimes I feel if things were grouped, but the consensus seems to be that things should be argued pretty much one by one. Gorobay has been hunting down these foreign script redirects for weeks now until Gorobay is starting to bore everyone to tearsone sees the pattern: if the term itself involves the target in that language then it's useful, but we are not a translation dictionary.
I note also that when I check the targets almost always there is no Interwiki link to the language in question, so what happens in practice is that a Russian-language reader (or whatever other script etc for other redirects: Gorobay hasn't tried Hebrew and Arabic yet but I bet will soon!) will likely end up looking at a page in English in a script and language they don't understand. How is that useful? Okay, it could perhaps occasionally be marginally useful in that they can use Google Translate... but on the whole it is just a WP:SURPRISE to do that, as well as WP:FORRED as Gorobay notes. Si Trew (talk) 09:23, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonTrew: Russian person who speaks English or some English wants to find information about Przevalski's nuthatch and knows it's name in Russian (but does not know what it's called in English) so they type in the name just looking for info: If there's a Russian Wikipedia page, Google is smart enough to show them that as a higher result; if there's no Russian article they find the English page and that's useful for them as well, but then, because they're interested in the topic and realize by finding there's no Russian page one is needed, is prompted to start the Russian page. That's damn useful. It's an analog for just why we make redlinks internally in Articles but here externally fosters foreign article creation, and English is the closest we have to a lingua Franca on this planet, with vast numbers of people speaking some of it, far more than any other language, so it's not the same consideration as, say, the same conversation if we were at another language Wikipedia. From another perspective: Russian person is searching for Przevalski's nuthatch and knows it's name in English but not in Russian (not at all unlikely for many things, given the corpus of English); they want to start an article but are not sure what to call it, they search for it in English to see if they can hunt down the Russian, and this redirect allows them to do that. Also damn useful, maybe even vital.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:11, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Fughettaboutitt:. Yes, I can see the point there and indeed I have pushed that point myself: after all I am an inclusionist and want people to find the information they are looking for. By the way when I was having a go at Gorobay he or she probably has a higher success rate here at RfD than anyone: I am sure he or she doesn't bring things arbitrarily and so my sarcasm was exactly that! I have been told off for making jokes.... so I should stop doing it. Not on articles of course but to have a joke on a discussion page seems OK to me and is meant as respect not criticism.
I can see both sides of both sides. WP wants people to come here and to learn about stuff. But do we lead or mislead? I can see your point; but would a reader who can read the Cyrillic alphabet but not the Latin one then find it useful or surprising to get an English article about a Russian term? I don't really know the answer to that. Yes, they can get a rough translation from Google Translate or whatever which just uses statistical machine translation; something I know quite a lot about; but is it helpful that they get "a Nuthatch is a bird that forages for nuts and lives in a hatch. It is endemic to...." (I made that up of course, but it can be that bad: and doesn't claim otherwise)? I don't know. Si Trew (talk) 12:22, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:FORRED, which is really a statement of precedent in consensus (like, say, WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES) more than just an essay. Przevalski's nuthatch may have been named for a Russian, but this is true about a great many species. It's really not a defining characteristic. And as far as I can tell, the blue nuthatch has no connection to any Russian topic. If either of them were native to Russia, that would be good enough for me. As such, they should go. --BDD (talk) 17:39, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:41, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bird law

I strongly suspect this was created in reference to a joke from It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia. While the target is a law dealing with birds, it's hardly a comprehensive treatment of laws dealing with birds, not that I'm sure that we could really have such an article. The hatnote refers to Audubon (magazine), which was formerly known as Bird Lore, but not, as far as I can tell, Bird Law. The joke is mentioned at Charlie Kelly (It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia)#Legal and monetary issues, but retargeting there doesn't seem to make sense either. BDD (talk) 18:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If Bird's law exists, it should retarget there. Unfortunately it doesn't. J. Alfred Bird made the recipe for Bird's Custard which doesn't have any egg in it cos his wife was allergic to eggs, if I remember correcty: so Bird's Law could equally go to him (and sometimes I do this on purpose to provoke discussion). But otherwise it should go to ornithology or some such. In what sense is bird law? Robins fight for their territory, pigeons like to cohabit. Si Trew (talk) 10:33, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: I'm not sure about a dab, but I'd love to write an actual article here. Any suggestions on sources? I've left a call at WT:BIRDS.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:37, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ordinarily, I'd want to retarget to animal law because bird law is just a special case of that, but birds aren't specifically discussed there. So the reader would be better served by search results. --NYKevin 19:09, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Users who go to bird law expect to see something in the user's home country, but the target is only about the law in one country. It would be fine to create a disambiguation page with links to various laws or an article about laws in different countries under this title, but until such a page has been created, we should not keep this confusing redirect. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:38, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wpem

useless redirect to save on capitals The Banner talk 11:25, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - There is an active discussion about this issue at WT:SHC#Template_shortcuts. Barring a change to something more suitable, this redirect does no harm now that it has been created. Though consensus may state otherwise at this time, I feel that in most cases, that we do not want a lower case redirect to point to a different location than its upper case counterpart. Additionally, we have redirects such as {{albums}} and {{songs}}. Whoever nominates these should be obligated to correct them manually. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:07, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:36, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Πεντάγραμμον

Delete. Pentagrams are not especially Greek. Gorobay (talk) 14:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep while I would not suggest encouraging more creations like this they are harmless, and should not be deleted. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:40, 4 June 2014 (UTC).

User:Gonzalev1

Confusing redirect from userspace to an article. Same problem with the talk page. Stefan2 (talk) 14:22, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fix the talk page (i.e. remove the #redirect header and {{R from move}}) and keep the user page. The user is actively editing the target page, and may be using this redirect for reasons of convenience. Until they say otherwise, we should leave their stuff alone. --NYKevin 19:17, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wadewitz

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 converted to Surname page. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 13:20, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bad redirect, other people have this name too. Also there no indication she commonly known just by this Beerest 2 Talk page 12:40, 3 June 2014 (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/2014_June_3&oldid=611461171"