Wikipedia talk:Redirects in languages other than English

Origin of this essay

This was originally proposed on the project page as a centralized discussion question.

Should redirects from foreign languages be allowed on the English Wikipedia?

Traditionally, redirects from foreign titles have been tolerated though never actively encouraged. Their status under Wikipedia:Redirect/DeletionReasons is ambiguous. Some occur as a result of a pagemove from the foreign language to the english title, others are created directly as redirects.

A proposal has been made on the Redirects for Discussion page that such redirects are inappropriate and should be purged from the project. 土 → Earth is an example.

Since we have many thousands of redirects from foreign language titles, this seems more appropriate to decide in a centralized discussion than in an isolated discussion of a single redirect. We would appreciate comments. Rossami (talk) 23:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• I'm personally in favor of redirects from foreign languages in the case of movies, books, works of art, and the like. Translating a title of a work like that into English doesn't necessarily succeed in making that the correct title, and I think it's appropriate in those cases to maintain a redirect. (If this comment was supposed to go somewhere else and I misplaced it, feel free to move it to the proper spot. Thanks) matt91486 (talk) 00:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Matt's comment above. I go out of my way to ensure that when I create a foreign film article, the original language title is a redirect to the main article. Lugnuts (talk) 12:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• I think that the status quo is fine and that such redirects should not be deleted. While those from Chinese characters or other non-Roman alphabets are probably not very useful, deleting them is generally more trouble than it's worth. After all, they probably wouldn't have been created if no one found them useful. Those from foreign names in the Roman alphabet (like Deutschland → Germany) should absolutely be kept. People searching the English Wikipedia might not know the common English name, especially if it is not a literal translation like (Pan's Labyrinth ← El Laboryntho del Fauna) and should be redirected to the appropriate place even if the alternate language name is not used in English. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
• Deleting the existing foreign language redirects would not serve much purpose (redirects are cheap). However, it may be advisable to have a policy or guideline to discourage redirects from foreign language names where the English name is the native/original name. (In other words, we wouldn't need a redirect from Non è un paese per vecchi to No Country for Old Men, because the English title is the original name.) Nor do we need redirects from foreign language names for common nouns, such as the aforementioned "土 → Earth", or, say, computadora to computer. If such a policy or guideline is enacted, an editor who creates unnecessary redirects along these lines should be warned and eventually blocked if they persist in doing so. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

But what about if No Country for Old Men is released officially as Non è un paese per vecchi in Italian speaking countries? If I'm Italian, I might not know the original title. Through its release in Italy under that title (hypothetically), it becomes a proper name of that subject. Many things have official titles in more than one language. As noted above, redirects are cheap. They're also useful, and I think this discussion seriously underestimates how useful they are, and how they've led to the growth and strength of this encyclopedia. This could be a serious step backwards. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

If you only know the Italian title, wouldn't it make sense to instead start at the Italian wiki, find the it:Non è un paese per vecchi article and see that in the "other languages" box that there is a link to en:No Country for Old Men? We shouldn't unnecessarily replicate the work done by other language-wikis. - 52 Pickup ^(deal) 10:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• Allowing redirects for ordinary words for foreign languages could in principle lead to including the dictionaries of all the world's languages into the English language (and in fact every language) version of wikipedia. It would do a poor job as a dictionary, because many words have more than one meaning, or cover ony part of the meaning of a word in another language. I am not against having redirects for proper names in the spelling of the original person or object, such as geographic names, people and works of art. −Woodstone (talk) 10:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree that there shouldn't be random foreign words functioning as redirects. I propose that the following redirects should be always permitted for foreign things: Works of Art, Legislation, Government organizations and bodies, Movies, Works of Literature, other publications, Names, Geographic features. There might be some circumstances beyond these that could be applicable, but these are the ones that stood out in my mind as absolutely necessary. Any thoughts? matt91486 (talk) 05:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, as long as we specify that those should be allowed for redirects from the native/original name to the English name -- not from any foreign version of the name to the English name. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
      • The two above could be condensed into the rule: "only allowed for the original names of people, organisations, legislation, geographic features and works of art". This implicitly includes movies and literature as works of art. It expands to NGO's. Anyone has a not so specialistic name for "legislation". −Woodstone (talk) 13:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Maybe "documents", that gives some more leeway than legislation. matt91486 (talk) 15:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Or, using the overlooked "publications" from above:

• Redirects from other languages are only allowed for the original names of people, organisations, publications, works of art, and geographic features
  

−Woodstone (talk) 15:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• I am uncomfortable with the assumption that we can create a definitive list of all the allowable situations. If we're going to establish this rule, I think we would be better served with a broad rule that can be interpreted in a wide variety of circumstances over time.
  The other important clarification is that this rule can not and should not prevent the use of redirects for other administrative purposes. For example, if content is merged from the foreign-titled page to the english-titled page, we turn the merged page into a redirect and keep the pagehistory behind it to preserve the contribution history (a requirement of GFDL). This rule should only apply to the creation of new pages as redirects directly.
  What about a more general guideline that says Redirects from foreign language titles or in foreign character sets should not be preemptively created unless the native/original title is the foreign language version. For example ... and then list four or five appropriate redirects. Rossami (talk) 16:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• Non roman character sets are also useful--in fact sometimes the more useful of all, including those from languages such as Chinese. When I see a title in a script I do not know, if I copy and paste it, I can use it--it's one of the great advantages of modern character sets. I've routinely been adding Arabic and Chinese names and book titles to WP articles on relevant subjects in this fashion. If there is a title of a named entity in its native non-English language, there should always be a redirect, and they should be created routinely. We should not be limited to where there is an article in another WP. In other cases, redirets should be unusual, such as where a concept has originated in a non-English speaking country.DGG (talk) 00:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• This discussion is not bound to other scripts. It is equally valid for languages using the latin script. We just want to avoid including all foreign dictionaries. A redirect from say arbre to tree should never be allowed. Only names of individual entities should be allowed, not general words. −Woodstone (talk) 12:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• I strongly support the statement that 'Redirects from other languages are only allowed for the original names of people, organisations, publications, works of art, and geographic features. I also agree with some additions for geographic places that are in borders where the term the neighbor country uses can be used as well. No other exceptions. -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• I concur with Magioladitis, immediately above, but would add: in many places historic placenames have changed from one language to another as borders shifted and/or official languages changed. Particularly for geographic features I think there should be some leeway on what counts as an original foreign name. Also, like DGG, I find the inclusion of non-Roman script versions particularly helpful, as there are so many different ways of romanizing some scripts, and a redirect from the "original name" gets it in one. --Paularblaster (talk) 23:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Agreed. Redirects from other languages should only be kept if it is the original name of foreign proper nouns. All others like the Earth redir at the top should be deleted. Reywas92^Talk 23:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, importing the world's dictionaries is something we should guard against, and that's where this discussion started. But it seems to have moved quickly away from that, towards finding a blanket set of rules to be applied in all cases. A new rule that includes the words only, is likely to be used like a hammer, and replace discussion about the reasonableness of the redirect. If, for example, an English language film is released officially under a different title in a foreign language, a foreign language user may come here only knowing the name and without a redirect will be stranded. Subjects where the foreign name is more common than than the English name, or often used instead of the English name. I often only know the foreign word for something, and it's more common than many might think. I'd like to refocus the argument and propose that the guiding principle here is that there should be a specific reason for a redirect. Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• I support this proposal. I recall an RFD for he:עוגיפלצת which is the Hebrew word for Cookie Monster. Such redirects, though they cause no harm, are totally unnecessary and should be deleted. I would even say that ירושלים should not redirect to Jerusalem, despite the fact that the Hebrew name is much, much older. However, it's hard to take issue with such redirects as Timor-Leste to East Timor. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 14:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Based on the above proposals and reactions may I propose a new weakened formulation:

Redirects from other languages are only allowed for proper names that have a special relation to that language

Would it still be added value to add that this includes such things as names of people, organisations, publications, works of art, and geographic features?

−Woodstone (talk) 15:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• • Again, I dislike the "only allowed" wording because it will create confusion among editors who don't know about (or don't notice) those redirects which were created for GFDL-preservation, et al. Can we change "are only allowed for" to "should only be created for"? Rossami (talk) 00:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

We have yo make clear that redirects outiside of these criteria will be deleted. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Can I ask again, perhaps more pointedly this time, what justification is being given for the disallowance of redirects from foreign languages. The original justification was to prevent mainspace from filling up with redirect-wiktionary-spam. I can see the logic behind this. But we've moved far away from that, and I fail to see how this will make the encyclopedia better. If anything, we're about to make it harder for people to find the information they're looking for. We're now looking to put a restrictive set of rules in place, without (so far) strong justification. Answer me this - should Ketjap manis be allowed? I didn't create it to make a point, but it fits the bill well. Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment Meanwhile, User:JLaTondre decided to close the conversation for Earth with "No consensus". This makes it more difficult for people to find this discussion and participate. I think the conversation should remain open some days more. -- Magioladitis (talk) 02:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• To try my own hand at drafting, and bearing in mind the wikipedia position on rules and common sense, how about: Redirects from other languages should generally be avoided unless a well-grounded rationale can be provided for their inclusion. Examples of appropriate use of foreign-language redirects include original or official names of people, places, institutions or publications; products associated with a particular locality where that language is spoken; and culture-specific concepts or activities.? --Paularblaster (talk) 13:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I like it. -- Magioladitis (talk)

Thanks. It took me three goes to get there - I'll use a sandbox next time I try something like this! --Paularblaster (talk) 19:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It's good. Thanks. Mostlyharmless (talk) 21:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

section break

Contentwise I support this statement, but the formulation here needing semicolons needs better styling. How about:

• Redirects from other languages should generally be avoided unless a well-grounded rationale can be provided for their inclusion. Examples of appropriate use of foreign-language redirects include original or official names of people, places, institutions, publications, products, or manifestations of culture with special significance in areas where that language is spoken.

−Woodstone (talk) 21:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we have to note some bad examples as well. Like translation of common words like Earth, computer, etc. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Add " or to support administrative functions such as the merger or movement of content. to the examples sentence and I'm good with that wording, too. Rossami (talk) 23:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above, which seems to be the natural conclusion of this debate. Keeping track of the redirects that have significant page history following a merge should be done with the {{R from merge}} template - I know many people forget to use that or are not aware of it. There are also redirects created out of pre-existing articles - again, these have a page history. The redirects left behind after a page move are not needed for GFDL, but if the page had been around for a while, the redirect is needed to preserve any links outside Wikipedia that people may have made to the page. Maybe a bot can detect the redirects with page history and label them if they are not already labelled, and maybe it can distinguish the "redirects following a move" from the "created from scratch redirects"? Carcharoth (talk) 07:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It'd be helpful to mark in the edit summary or on the redirect talk page the rationale behind it, to avoid conflicts. I just created a redirect (Coalición Cívica), and I included in the edit summary why it was appropriate, just to make it a little easier on anyone who runs into it so they know it's valid. matt91486 (talk) 21:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Tentative consensus?

It appears that the discussion has reached rough consensus. How do you all feel about this consolidated version (perhaps with gradual improvement of the examples)? Rossami (talk) 00:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Redirects from other languages should generally be avoided unless a well-grounded rationale can be provided for their inclusion.

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)
• 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 土 (Chinese for Earth), computadora (Spanish for computer) or or עוגיפלצת (Hebrew for Cookie Monster))
• Direct translations where the English 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 where the English title may be the original but the foreign version has become common or when the foreign version is not a literal translation (such as ___)

• I agree. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
• I agree too (except that El Laberinto del Fauno is the original title, so it makes a bad last example). --Paularblaster (talk) 00:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Good catch. Do you have a better example for the "ambiguous" set? Rossami (talk)
    • Lola rennt for Run Lola run would be an example... but redirect exists :( What about Clacson, Trombette e Pernacchi for Trumpets and Raspberries ? -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Shouldn't we be making that one a redirect then if it's an example? matt91486 (talk) 18:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
        • If we wanted to include Lola rennt or Clacson, Trombette e Pernacchi, they'd be examples of the first bullet under the "appropriate" examples above. Those are the original titles for works that were first released in the other language. I'm still trying to find a good example for the "ambiguous" bullet. Rossami (talk)
• I agree, sound like good criteria for me. matt91486 (talk) 18:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I just noticed something. If it is just a merger that records a move and has no other history, why keep it? -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it's just in case someone searches for the old term, just for general facilitating. matt91486 (talk) 20:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• I generally agree, but earlier on, the exception for "moves" was limited to the case where "significant history is left behind". I think that phrase should be added. −Woodstone (talk) 21:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, something like this. If history is just the move action or someone created two articles with the same content and two different title, I don't think we have to keep the redirect if it doesn't apply to any of the other rules.-- Magioladitis (talk) 22:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

There are two reasons to keep the redirect even if the history is just the pagemove. First, changes to page title are generally considered useful history. Second, to avoid the risk of breaking links which, we must remember, may be either internal or external. The second factor has a low probability for very newly created pages but can have a very high probability for older pages.
Magioladitis, I know that you disagree with me on this point but I'd like to reserve that issue for a separate discussion. The principles behind redirects that result only from pagemoves apply to more than just the foreign-language redirects. Rossami (talk) 13:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I disagree with this policy of Wikipedia but I know this is a different task here. We can't touch it right here. Hopefully, someone in the future puts the subject under question. So, let's say that I agree but I have a small disagreement about the history part. Friendly, Magioladitis (talk) 13:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• I don't want to belabor or wikilawyer the point but: Original or official names of people, places... should be clarified to include forms used regardless of whether official or original and what is the "original" is often a matter of dispute particularly in areas where borders or populations have shifted and what is "official" has us buy into some governments' suppression of minority languages, etc. The group working on geographic names has worked long on trying to establish what the name of the article should be, I think with the implicit assumption that redirects from all the also-rans would be a no-brainer as "redirects are cheap". Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

As the writer presumes already, the above comment has some aspect of hair splitting. The word original is only meant as contrast with the English name. If several non-English variants exist locally of the object named, all would be acceptable. Official clearly includes the name used by the entity itself. So I cannot see any political implications playing a major role here. −Woodstone (talk) 22:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I'll bookmark this just in case someone starts trying to get, e.g., Kurdish language redirects for places in Turkey deleted on grounds that the "original" is Greek or Persian or Arabic and the "official" is Turkish, so the Kurdish version is not permitted. :-) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the intent of the rule is that; hopefully the phrasing doesn't accidentally lead to abuse like that. matt91486 (talk) 16:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you have an example of an accepted but perhaps not technically "original" alternate name that we can shoehorn into the list above to demonstrate the point? Rossami (talk) 20:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The town of Mechelen, in Belgium, is under that name (which is both original and official); acceptably redirecting to it (since they are forms of the name that can easily be found in older sources, without any further identification) are both Mechlin (an archaic English name for the town that is no longer the "common English name" - I've tried to revive it but copy editors aren't buying) and Malines (the French name, neither original nor official). --Paularblaster (talk) 21:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• My last post leads me to the reflection: perhaps the third category of the draft should read something like:

• 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 for Mechelen)

Any takers? --Paularblaster (talk) 21:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I think so. Take Gus Dur for Abdurrahman Wahid. Not an official name, not a translation, not his original name, but a name that is very widely used (to the point where it's even the the title of his official website, gusdur.net). Perhaps you could include it under "manifestation of culture", but we'd better be specific. Mostlyharmless (talk) 23:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Another possible example could be Serendib (Arab) and Ceylon (British) as acceptable redirects to Sri Lanka (Tamil)? Strictly neither names are "original", but they are so notable as to deserve an independent place. −Woodstone (talk) 21:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Others include many of the ancient cities of the Near & Middle East, and Turkey: e.g. Kayseri, originally Mazaca, and called Eusebia and Caesarea during the last centuries BCE and first few centuries CE; renamed Kaisariyah upon Arab conquest in the 7th century or so, and finaly Kayseri in the 11th century with the advent of the Turkish conquest. All valid redirects (actually Eusebia & Caesarea are dabs that include Kayseri). Erzurum for which are article posts a citation needed for the Persian version as its "original" form, has Greek and Armenian forms when the city was in their spheres - again all valid redirects. What we want is the ability to cross-reference. So if a source says that so-and-so did such-and-such at Eusebia in Cappadocia, we know what we're talking about and Kayseri can be found. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps: Historic names that were once in widespread use (such as Kayseri redirected from; original name Mazaca, then Eusebia and Caesarea during the last centuries BCE and first few centuries CE; then renamed Kaisariyah)Mostlyharmless (talk) 22:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's better than mine. --Paularblaster (talk) 00:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The proposed consensus sounds very good to me. I spend a lot of time working on translations from other wikis and it has become clear that a certain number of redlinks is better than having redirects for everything, which only tends to encourage faulty translations and multiple redirects. The Mechelen example above has reminded me of another problem: redirects to foreign languages. For example, Talk:Berne almost completely consists of debates to shift the article from the official English/French name "Berne" to the German name "Bern" - I won't go into details here, you can see it clearly enough on the page itself. This problem does not exactly fit within what is being discussed here, but I felt that it was worth mentioning here. - 52 Pickup ^(deal) 10:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Try again?

@BDD: It's interesting that you dug this up - I'd not seen it before. I think it could merit being re-examined for broader acceptance. What say you? — Scott • talk 16:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I don't quite remember how I came across it. I think this is a pretty well accepted standard that we could call a guideline or something, if that's what you're talking about. It might also be worth incorporating into the instructions at WP:RFD, where most documentation on redirect standards currently exists. --BDD (talk) 16:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

If you read the discussion, the concern is primarily with creating dictionary-translation redirects. There are a bunch of red-herrings here, but the important points from the discussion are:

• A redirect from a random word in a random language to its English equivalent is not necessarily a good redirect because it may have other meanings (either in English, Randomeese or a third languages).
• There is a feeling that we don't want a systematic set of redirects equivalent to full Interwikis, because "there would be a lot of them" (actually much less than a billion).
• There is no impact on RfD, only that we should discourage people from creating masses of non-English, non relevant redirects.

All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 20:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC).

Guideline?

I was (independently of the discussion from a couple of weeks ago above) wondering about raising this to a guideline, as the consensus at recent redirects seems to follow the text of this essay in most cases. That there are exceptions is no barrier to this as exceptions to guidelines are explicitly permitted and the text of this essay is phrased as "generally" which implicitly notes that there may be exceptions. However, reading the above I think there would need to be a bit more discussion first. This can logically be split into sections I think:

1. Redirects FORRED notes as appropriate (e.g. Deutschland → Germany). These seem to have very widespread acceptance and such redirects are not controversial, indeed I can't bring to mind the last time one was nominated let alone deleted.
2. Common words (e.g. bodem → soil). That these are inappropriate also seems to have common acceptance, they do occasionally get created but I don't remember any recent nominations gaining reasoned arguments in favour of keeping them.
3. Direct translations where there is no direct connection but no ambiguity. These are the most frequently nominated at RfD and they are usually deleted, but they do garner comments against this course of action. I suspect this is the only type that requires significant discussion?
4. Other cases where there is ambiguity. I don't recall off the top of my head any recent examples of these to say how they commonly go, but extrapolating from the above I think that commonly used and/or significant uses would get disambiguated and others deleted?

So, any comments? Pinging @BDD, Rich Farmbrough, and Scott: and I'll also leave notes at WT:RFD, WT:REDIRECT and WT:RE. Thryduulf (talk) 11:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

One of the problems is a misapplication of WP:NOT. Certainly WP is not a translating dictionary, that doesn't mean that

1. It can't be used as a translating dictionary.
2. If it acquires translating dictionary [functionality] that is a bad thing [per se].

What it does mean is that

1. We should not be impeding the encyclopaedic project by (for example) putting lots of translations in the leads of articles
2. We should not be creating redirects so that someone can find out what "boulangerie" means in English, but only so that they can find out about it.

There are potential problems, as you know that sometimes words have two meanings. Not insuperable, we could have dabs for these.

The potential number of redirects in itself is not a problem. Igbo, for example, has a closed set of eight adjectives. Zyziphora hirtifrons is the same in all languages - Apocephalus hirtifrons. And so forth. It seems unlikely that we would have more than a few hundred million, even if we systematically created as many as we could.

There might well be a better mechanism, though, based on Wikidata (I do believe we need some fixes to the "Find" functionality anyway).

One could proffer links based on interwikis, and indeed transliterations as far as Indic languages go.

All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 12:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC).

I most strongly disagree with you Rich on this; it would be a very bad thing for English Wikipedia to have a translating dictionary being built via redirects, because 'a few hundred million' needs maintenance; they need to be categorised, and categories change, and technology changes and existing pages block those changes. e.g. there will be errors, which require RfDs, in which many participants of the discussion do not know the language of the redirect well. We have Wiktionary, and Wikidata is already far better than Wikipedia at providing a translating dictionary. People who build/use English Wikipedia redirects as a translating dictionary instead of Wiktionary, Wikidata, foreign language Wikipedia are suffering from chronic not invented here syndrome, and need to get out of their en.wp dominated basement.

To reply to question in this thread, I think the current wording has broad enough support to become a guideline, given it already says that there are many such redirects which will need to be reviewed on their merits John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

It's clear that interwiki links were not meant to be used as a translating dictionary, yet they have been used, by many, including me.

I thought it was also clear from what I wrote that I am not suggesting "a translating dictionary be built in", at least not (intentionally) via redirects. We have better technology for that.

I am merely saying that running scared of "accidentally" creating a translating dictionary is a mistake.

We have had similar discussions in the past where people have wanted to remove all External links sections because NOTDIR, or etymologies because NOTDIC.

Simply if someone finds a redirect useful, or would have found it useful, and as a consequence goes to the trouble to add it, then telling her "it is not useful" is both a little presumptuous, unnecessary, and probably wrong.

All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 20:13, 16 April 2014 (UTC).

Note that many (most?) arbitrary redirects have one of two origins:

• Some users create hundreds of redirects from foreign terms found in various articles. This is often appropriate, but sometimes produces false positives, like Αλλος.
• Some users create dozens of redirects to single pages. For example, Portugal, Argentina, Chess, Seventh-day Adventist Church, and The Holocaust have many arbitrary foreign redirects, all created by one person in each case.

In neither of these cases does the creator know the foreign languages in question. So the existence of these redirects does not mean that someone added it because they would have found it useful. Gorobay (talk) 21:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

That is absolutely correct, nonetheless they thought it useful. Even if they are wrong we should delete the redirect only if it is harmful or new. It would be good to have some statistics about FLRDs. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 05:19, 25 April 2014 (UTC).

• Strongly opposed. Bad translations are already against policy: the only thing this "policy" would serve to promote is removing accurate translations and increasing the database. In other news, the underlying guideline justifying this expansion is the gloss that foreign translations count as "obscure synonyms": that conflation is entirely inaccurate and should be removed from the page there as well (admittedly, separate issue). — LlywelynII 04:04, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

How foreign-language redirects are harmful

This doesn't directly impact the discussion above, so I thought I'd make a new section. One thing I'd like to see added to this page, especially if it's going to be promoted, is why. If Non è un paese per vecchi and bodem take readers to the article they're looking for, as some have put it, what's the problem? (For what it's worth, this makes the significant assumption that we're discussing, in these cases, Italian-speaking readers looking for No Country for Old Men and Dutch-speaking readers looking for soil.) Let's imagine hypothetical readers, Luigi and Johan, and let's imagine those two redirects still exist. Luigi is fluent in Italian but hoping to improve his English skills by checking out topics that interest him on the English Wikipedia. He tries out Non è un paese per vecchi, because he liked the movie. "Great," he thinks (in Italian), and goes to read about his favorite sport of basketball. He goes ahead and types in Pallacanestro and... nothing. Similarly, Johan is a university student interested in ecology and hoping to study in the US or the UK. He uses Bodem, reads about soil. Next, he wants to read about climate change, but checking Klimaatverandering is less than helpful.

These examples may seem a bit silly; these guys probably know how to use Google Translate or follow interwikis from the Italian or Dutch Wikipedias. But isn't that the point? I believe there are readers like Luigi and Johan out there, but they know how to use these basic tools to figure out English-language search terms. If they want to learn English, this is actually going to enhance their learning. Creating hundreds of millions of redirects to accommodate foreign-language terms is going to strain the servers we're not supposed to worry about, and for what?

[tl;dr: Foreign-language redirects trick readers into thinking the English Wikipedia can be navigated effectively in another language. This is not true.] --BDD (talk) 21:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• There is also the issue of homographs within a language and between language, and things like false friends. See wikt:dam for example - none of the following will be helped by our Dam article or even our Dam (disambiguation) page: Crimean Tatar speakers looking for stable, roof or taste; Danish speakers looking for pond, draughts; Frulian speakers looking for damage; Swedish speakers looking for woman or queen (chess); and Uzbek speakers looking for bellows. Such uses would also be speedily removed from the disambiguation page as it already contains links to the Wiktionary page for translations. Thryduulf (talk) 10:05, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes this is slightly significant, as I think I mentioned. It's one of the reasons that common word links are specifically discouraged. And I think that the wikt: link on the dab page is the perfect solution. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:18, 25 April 2014 (UTC).
    
• I don't think anyone is suggesting creating hundreds of millions of redirects. No need to have a policy against something no-one is going to do - per BEANS and CREEP.
• Secondly - strain on the servers? Pah! Indexing is scalable, the SQL cost is a few G, which wouldn't sit in cache (unless, heaven forbid! it was useful). My point in raising the "few hundred million" scenario was precisely the even if that happened, which it won't and no-one is proposing, the impact would be fairly trivial.
• If Abaca bunchy top virus takes readers where they want to go, what's the problem? Well later they try Chelonid herpesvirus 6 and.. nothing! Virus articles trick readers into thinking Wikipedia covers all of virology. this is not true.

  All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:18, 25 April 2014 (UTC).
  

There's a pretty clear difference though. WP:WHAAOE aside, I think people realize Wikipedia doesn't have an article on everything. If we don't have an article on Chelonid herpesvirus 6, that becomes apparent when you search for it. But in the above example, we do have articles on basketball and climate change. But by implying an ability to search in a foreign language, readers could come under the impression that we don't have articles on subjects we actually do cover. Maybe no one is suggesting creating hundreds of millions of redirects, but I do think that would be preferable to the piecemeal status quo. Enforcement of FORRED, or a more refined solution like Scott's, would be better still. --BDD (talk) 17:31, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• @BDD: You may be interested in my T46038, which proposes a non-hacky (lots of redirects is the definition of hacky) way to navigate Wikipedia in foreign languages. — Scott • talk 11:40, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Interesting, and very forward thinking. I'd love to see something like that get implemented, and it may allow us to clear out foreign-language redirects as redundancies. --BDD (talk) 17:31, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• I just looked over at WP:RFD. It's one discussion after another in which some redirect or other has been nominated for deletion under this rule. I don't know if this situation is common or typical. But if it is, I must say: What a waste of the time for everyone involved! These redirects are perfectly harmless. They are certainly less disruptive than when editors put foreign language names into the articles themselves. Cleanliness first (talk) 07:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

There's a spate of them because a very good-faith editor is hunting them down. The argument, then, is whether to treat them individually or as a group. It was decided today that the regulars at RfD, with all due consensus, gave the go-ahead to delete all the foreign-language redirects to the main page. But this was after I think Wikid77 putting pertinently the main page is the easiest page to find so we don't need foreign-language redirects to it. It is less clear in other cases, which is why they are argued one-by-one. Si Trew (talk) 19:23, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• I'll throw my hat into the ring. User:Eluchil404 mentioned the status quo, which is Latin. So in a discussion about foreign words you use a foreign word. But in English, everything is a foreign word in some sense. What are you going to do about Status Quo? And what are you going to do about Poszony/Bratislava/Pressburg? Presumably two out of the three are foreign words. What are you going to do about Mumbai/Bombay? Which one is the "English" word and which one the "foreign" word? They are both transliterations. What about Egypt, should we call that Misr, transliterated? The purpose of redirects is to help people find the information they are looking for, and that is the only criterion (oh whoops, sorry, Greek there). There is no kind of language puritanism in English, we have neither side of the pond an equivalent of the Académie française to tell us how to speak, we make it up as we go along. Neither England nor the U. S. even has an official language (Wales has two.) And long may it continue: language evolves faster than governments. Si Trew (talk) 19:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Si, this doesn't apply to redirects where the languages and the subject have clear connections. Nor does it apply to loanwords. Anyway, "status quo" has become enough of an English-language phrase that it's frequently not even given in italics. None of your examples would be deleted (or even changed) if FORRED were promoted to a guideline or something. --BDD (talk) 20:15, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

This is a terrible policy

Redirects from foreign names are actively helpful and have zero downside. Inaccurate translations face the same deletion policy everyone else has; the only thing this policy manages to do is to encourage deleting correct translations and increasing the size of the database (WP:CHEAP). The entire "policy" should be abolished. — LlywelynII 16:52, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Just saw that it was only a proposal. Someone should tell the people at redirects for discussion: Nearly half of these entries have notations proposing deletion on the basis of this non-policy. — LlywelynII 16:56, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Before you continue, please notice that this essay basically restates the WP:R#DELETE criterion 8. WP:R is guideline and represents community's consensus. At least I personally use "per WP:FORRED" just because it is easier to type then "per WP:R#DELETE criterion 8". — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 17:39, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Nope. The words unlikely and should and generally all effectively neuter that guideline. This plans to actually rephrase it into actual policy, which is unhelpful at best and actively destructive in general. It's a terrible idea.

In other news, yes, you should link to the actual guideline and not an essay. If you think the existing redirect is too unwieldy to be used... make a better one. — LlywelynII 03:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Why should I link to guideline, not to essay? What is wrong with citing essays? Discussions are driven by rationales, and essays are rationales. If anything, essays should be used. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 08:55, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Because a guideline has reached consensus. Essays are random, if well informed ideas, and may disagree with other essays, or even themselves. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:09, 12 July 2014 (UTC).

And? Essays explain rationales, saving editors' time which would be otherwise wasted on reiteration. Policies and guidelines are purposely vague, and essays may be (and are) used to fill the gaps and explain the rationale behind the statement without flooding discussions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 00:28, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

An example

Today I looked up Zingari, I had a good idea that it meant the Folk, but it was used in an English language book. As it happens it is a redirect to Names of the Romani people which has "Zingari" listed as Italian, but if it had even been a redirect to Romani it would have served it's purpose.

As far as this essay is concerned, and recent RfD's this would have been listed as "not especially Italian" and supported with many "delete per FORRED".

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:25, 12 July 2014 (UTC).

You are doing it wrong. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It is a job of wikt:zingari to educate readers on meanings of foreign words; and it performs ways better then Wikipedia redirects ever could in this regard. Foreign language redirects (except for redirects from related languages) only serve the purpose of littering and supplying editors with really, really bad ideas about possible uses of redirection. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 00:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

This is also a poorly contrived example given that (a) the word appears on the page and is explained there, and (b) if it didn't point there it would point to Zingari (opera), whose lead translates the name of the work. Mangoe (talk) 00:54, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually I've tagged Zingari for speedy deletion for page move from Zingari (opera). It is a shame that opera on English Wikipedia must reside under disambiguated name just to make room for redirect from Italian word to its translation. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 01:08, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Now it is a title for opera. Thank you, Rich Farmbrough, for drawing attention to that redirect. Thatk you very much, Mangoe, for suggesting proper target. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 09:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

As I said I had an idea that it might mean the Folk - it might also have meant "a group of flute playing brigands form the Apennines". Nor did I know that it was a foreign word, and indeed it is arguably a lending, being used in a novel without any indication of foreign provenance. The assumption that "foreign = unnecessary" is deeply flawed. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC).

You got it all wrong. There is no assumption that "foreign = unnecessary". There is an assumption that translation is a task of dictionary, not encyclopedia. In Wikimedia, being a dictionary is a job of Wiktionary, which was specifically founded to separate dictionary-related functions from encyclopedia, for example to avoid cases when notable opera is not a primary topic because there is a redirect from foreign name of ethnicity. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 00:25, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Crediting contributions

I just added a section explaining why to avoid foreign redirects. If incorporates comments on this talk page, and also includes ideas from the user essay User:BigNate37/Non-English redirects considered harmful. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Add a new paragraph regarding foreign language redirects and foreign language article creation?

I recently thought of a new reason why foreign language redirects could he considered unhelpful: In the event that the foreign language redirect exists on the English Wikipedia, but there is no article for that subject on that redirect's language's Wikipedia. This came up recently regarding the redirect Juez judy after I discovered that there is currently no article for the redirect's target in the Wikipedia of the redirect's language. Anyways, here is the text I plan to introduce to this essay:

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.

– Steel1943 (talk) 19:13, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

• Paragraph added. Steel1943 (talk) 02:06, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Redirects to foreign languages

I'm having a little trouble finding any guideline or essay whose topic is the inverse of this one. In other words, suppose we have a case like the following:

Foo Bar is the official, non-English title of a media work published primarily in a non-anglophone country.

Baz Qux is a literal English translation of "Foo Bar," and it is not officially accepted as a title for said work.

Would a redirect from Baz Qux to Foo Bar generally be deleted? What if the redirect contained a parenthetical disambiguation, e.g. Baz Qux (film), which would appear to make it less likely as a search term? --SoledadKabocha (talk) 01:13, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

It probably depends on whether it is unofficially used as a title for said work. If no one uses it, it does not seem worth keeping. Gorobay (talk) 14:56, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Help:Interlanguage links gives some information on this. I just added it as a see also item on this page.Dialectric (talk) 15:58, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Affinity

The word "affinity" is frequently used in connection with FORRED discussions at RfD (e.g. "no affinity for German"[), yet is not mentioned anywhere in this guideline. This has caused confusion on several occasions, e.g. [1]. I would just boldly add it, but I'm not sure how best to phrase it or where particularly to best mention it. Thryduulf (talk) 13:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

"Redirects from foreign languages"? Suggestion: "Redirects from languages other than English" instead?

Hi all,
The world isn't divided up into "people who speak English" and "people who speak Foreign".
The Urban Dictionary satirical definition appears appropriate here.
What do you think about this?
Pedro en Australia aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:43, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Considering this is the English language Wikipedia I see foreign being non English as being quite clear.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 06:22, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is confused by the current name, but given that calling something foreign can be a at times be a bit pejorative, I like that Shirt58's proposal has a more neutral wording. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 06:49, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Totally agree: "foreign" in this case is a lazy shortcut that doesn't quite mean what it intends to mean. Frequently cited project pages like this one need to be written (and titled) to a higher standard of clarity. – Uanfala (talk) 10:04, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and implemented the suggestion. If anyone disagrees, we can go back to discussing. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:37, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Noticed the move log entry in my watchlist, so, Rosguill, thank you, I support this move. Thank you to nom for suggesting this. This makes the essay a lot more clear. Doug Mehus T·C 14:04, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

If it's not too late, I personally think the title should be WIkipedia:Redirects from languages other than English. They're not exactly in anything. Doug Mehus T·C 14:37, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

While we can retain WP:RLOTE, this would also allow us to add a fourth shortcut, WP:RFLOTE, which could even be WP:RFLOAT (sounds like RFLOTE), and be an even more popular replacement for the depreciated and ambiguous FORRED. Doug Mehus T·C 14:39, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

You can disregard the above suggestion, unless you think it makes the most sense. After re-reading the Lede of this essay, it does say in. So, it's fine. Doug Mehus T·C 15:10, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Dmehus, I moved to "in" because that made the most sense to me per normal English grammar (after all, the redirects are in that language). However, I am realizing that we have a longstanding convention of having "R from..." as a naming convention for redirects, so maybe from is better. I'm honestly indifferent at this point. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:23, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, Yeah, I was thinking of the longstanding convention "R from...," but seeing the way the Lede was written, it's fine the way it is. It's basically a coin flip. Doug Mehus T·C 03:26, 16 February 2020 (UTC)