Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 March 13

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. Ruslik_Zero 10:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rue Copernic → Union Libérale Israélite de France (links to redirect • history • stats) 

It's confusing for a street name to redirect to an article about one of the buildings on that street; when I saw this appear in the search bar I expected it to be an article on the street itself, or maybe a redirect to an article about the neighborhood the street is located in. The synagogue itself is often called the "Rue Copernic Synagogue," so I created a redirect for that, and anyone searching for this article will see that. Prezbo (talk) 18:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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. Ruslik_Zero 11:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Charles Zeanah → Charles H. Zeanah (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Charles H. is a living person. Charles Zeanah is a dead person listed on Wikipedia:Find-A-Grave famous people/Z for editing/possible article development/deletion. Deleting redirect should redlink Charles Zeanah S. Rich (talk) 17:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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. Peridon (talk) 18:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Anzhou, china → Anzhou (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Delete: Since Anzhou is a town, which is the fourth-level division in the People's Republic, this re-direct is not only unhelpful (most, based on the pinyin spelling of the name will be able to guess that this is a Chinese), but also a dumb violation of common-sense capitalisation guidelines that are also spelled out in WP:AT. HXL's Roundtable and Record 14:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The target is reasonable and unconfusing. In this case, the redirect quietly pointed a relatively new user to the page where his/her contributions would be most useful. To the other points in the nomination, redirects are no only exempted from the Wikipedia style guidelines on capitalization but are often deliberately created as capitalization variants to accommodate those who navigate by other than the search engine. The assertion that a redirect is unneeded is a value judgment based on how you navigate the wiki and is not a reason to delete. Rossami (talk) 16:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • you again. I hope you are not attempting to stall me, but it seems like you may be. We should not be promoting a ridiculous standard in the news (CNN) where reports from rural places may sometimes skip even from the third-level division (e.g. county). Much less should we do it from the fourth. this re-direct provides absolutely insufficient information. If someone were to be seriously browsing, then (s)he would already recognise that this is a pinyin name and therefore most like a mainland place, and (s)he would want to know more about the precise geography, e.g. what province, what county. In this scenario, "usefulness" also takes on the question "does it provide truly substantive information?"
    in any case, there is little possibility that you can sincerely believe that this re-direct is as useful as something like "Hebei, China", "Tangshan, China", "Anzhou, Anxin County", or even "Anzhou, Hebei". --HXL's Roundtable and Record 17:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it is nothing personal at all. You are, however, fundamentally misunderstanding the policy and practice of redirects at Wikipedia. Redirects serve many purposes, several of which you've overlooked in your arguments above. Your hypothesis that any knowledgeable reader "would already recognize" the usage is a key example. Redirects help the many people who are not already knowledgeable or don't have the context that you take for granted.
      Redirects can also be helpful in ways that have nothing to do with navigation. Redirects can be used to preserve the attribution history of content merged into another page (not relevant in this case but fairly common generally), to preserve the history of a pagemove (very common) or merely (as in this case) to gently point an editor to the place where his/her contributions will be more valuable and quietly preempt the creation of a forked article.
      More than that, though, I think you are misunderstanding the general inclusion standards for redirects. Redirects are cheap by which we mean that unless a redirect is actively confusing or harmful, the project developers have told us to leave them alone. Redirects are explicitly not endorsements of a particular title. Nor do they have to pass some threshold of "usefulness". They merely have to be unharmful. Rossami (talk) 19:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think your reasoning here, in large part, sounds too much like the spirit of Wikilawyering here...following the established guidelines at WP:REDIRECT too strictly, and not applying the common sense which you would otherwise display. At least in the large urban areas of the US, people will know that in the great majority of cases "ZH" implies something Chinese. And to be blunt, I don't think the actions/thought process of the original creator was very wise or conscious.
      • In terms of "endorsements of a particular title", I take title to mean "article title", which is certainly not what I said. I said that this re-direct would represent an endorsement of a bad practise in certain media. --HXL's Roundtable and Record 21:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Anzhou is in China. 184.144.160.156 (talk) 03:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. You were connected to a network when you were typing this comment. --HXL's Roundtable and Record 03:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is a redirect to the village Anzhou, which is in China. Someone may in fact type in Anzhou, china. Also we do often create redirects which are improperly capitalized to redirect users to the properly capitalized article.
  "At least in the large urban areas of the US, people will know that in the great majority of cases "ZH" implies something Chinese"
  Not in the U.S. I live in.AerobicFox (talk) 07:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep doesn't violate any guidelines at WP:RFD#DELETE.--Lenticel ^(talk) 06:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, perfectly good use of a redirect. One purpose of redirects is to help people find the article they are looking for, whichever of the many possible search methods they use, which this redirect does. Redirects do not endorse titles, spellings, practices or anything else good or bad. Indeed we explicitly want redirects from common incorrect spellings and capitalisations, common misnomers, outdated forms and practices, etc. as these help educate the reader (Wikipedia's primary goal) that what they typed is not correct. Thryduulf (talk) 11:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. Not particularly plausible, but I also see no good policy reasons to delete it. --Nlu (talk) 19:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 Closed following conversion to stub. Peridon (talk) 17:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Olindias phosphorica → Flower hat jelly

Flower hat jelly is devoted to Olindias formosa species. The confusion happened on 21 July 2007 when Eugene van der Pijll added taxobox with different latin name Olindias phosphorica (not a synonym of Olindias formosa). I've already corrected that in the text. Now the redirect shoud be deleted I believe. Mithril (talk) 03:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as inaccurate. Ideally WP:REDLINK would apply here, but it doesn't appear there are any incomming links (apart from an old featured picture nomination, which as I'm rather phobic of jellyfish I'm not going to look at). Thryduulf (talk) 10:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I concur - this is a different species. Generally, when we don't have a good target at the species level (and there's little chance that one will be created soon), we retarget to the next level up in the taxonomy. In this case, though, Olindias Mueller (or perhaps Olindias) also appears to be a redlink. The sub-class Trachylinae is the first populated page I could find. (The full taxonomy of Olindias Phosphorica can be found here.) Rossami (talk) 16:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Stub'ed :) --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]