Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 April 16

April 16

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 16, 2012

Central European Convention

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. Ruslik_Zero 16:35, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article was originally about the very non-notable pretend organization that's part of the International Association for the Exchange of Students for Technical Experience. I redirected it there for now, but I'm sure there are plenty of Central European organizations that would make more sense as a destination for this redirect. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 18:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, disambiguate or restore to an article and send it to AfD. Converting an article to a redirect and then immediately nominating the redirect for deletion always seems like an end run around proper process. Thryduulf (talk) 23:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is redirects for discussion and that was my intention, to find a better target. I don't think deletion is right here. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:54, 17 April 2012 (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.

Leah Lewis

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. JohnCD (talk) 20:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actress redirects to TV pilot article, with no actual information on the actress herself. Link should be left empty until actress is more notable. QuasyBoy (talk) 17:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and redlink There is definitely a potential article on her, so we should red link to encourage editors to create one. The closing admin should add a redlink to the Madison High article after deleting, BTW. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 19:03, 16 April 2012 (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.

Interstate 77 (1957-1958)

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 16:40, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term since it redirects to Interstate 77. This implies that nationally, there was an Interstate 77 that existed in two years and was discontinued. Instead, Michigan proposed a continuation of the number that was not accepted. Imzadi 1979 → 16:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - No need. Dough4872 20:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Now, I don't know whether there was a separate Interstate 77 (in 1957-1958) from the current one, but there should be a redirect to the former instance. If there is a source that could shed some light on the issue of whether there was a former highway or a former segment of the current highway, then I would like to see it. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 01:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • There isn't a "former segment of the current highway" because Michigan didn't sign any of its Interstates until 1959. Ergo, the I-77 in Michigan concept proposed in 1957 was never anything more than a line on a planning map that wasn't approved as a part of the system. Imzadi 1979 → 01:54, 20 April 2012 (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.

တပ်မတော်(ကြည်း

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. JohnCD (talk) 20:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Typo for တပ်မတော်(ကြည်း), localized name of target; implausible search term. Gurch (talk) 13:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete implausible search term on the English wiki--RadioFan (talk) 19:00, 18 April 2012 (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.

Talk:SimCity (2013 video game)

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 - article moved to SimCity (2013 video game) per WP:NCVG. NAC --Izno (talk) 02:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Associated talk page, please see discussion that is pursuant below. JamaUtil (talk) 05:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Void nomination talk pages do not need to be nominated separately from the redirect. Whatever happens to the redirect will happen to the talk page too. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 19:05, 16 April 2012 (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.

SimCity (2013 video game)

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 - article moved to SimCity (2013 video game) per WP:NCVG. NAC --Izno (talk) 02:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is misleading, since game will only be on computer. Not even sure what "video" means in this instance. Did user perhaps mean console/phone/tablet? Also no relevant edit history on history page. JamaUtil (talk) 05:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Snow close and start RM Move. "video game" is the proper title as per long-standing consensus. Also, the edit history is obviously linked to SimCity (2013 computer game)'s history. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 08:23, 16 April 2012 (UTC)\[reply]
    • I'm not sure what "the edit history is obviously linked to SimCity (2013 computer game)'s history" means. Would you mind explaining what is obvious? JamaUtil (talk) 15:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is relevant because the history says there was a page move. What I mean by "obvious" is that you know it, since you moved the page. The link only became a redirect after that. Thus the closing admin has to take into account how the redirect was formed, and it is directly related to a page move. Moving a page is different to redirecting a page, because incoming links, external mirrors, various reports, etc., all pointed here. Hope that's clarified what I meant. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, I'm afraid it hasn't. Why does the closing admin have to take into account how the page was formed when we're discussing a redirect? JamaUtil (talk) 00:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move. The article's current name goes against the WP:VG consensus on naming conventions - (WP:NCVG - "In addition never use "(computer game)" or "(computer gaming)" for any disambig even if the article is exclusively about a PC-related topic.") . User who nominated this redirect for deletion twice moved the article from its correct disambiguation name, with the edit summary "See WP:NAME". Regardless of the fact that (for now) only one platform has been announced, the correct location for the title is "(2013 video game)" in order to differentiate it from the original Sim City game. - X201 (talk) 08:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure why you brought disambig pages up, since SimCity (2013 computer game) is not a disambig page. For an example of a disambig page, please see UMD. JamaUtil (talk) 15:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • You know full well that by "disambig" the guideline is referring to the suffix "(2013 video game)". You moved the Sim City article from (2013 video game) to (2013 computer game). You moved to a naming system that is against consensus. Even when you were informed of the consensus and the guidelines, you moved the article a second time. You also removed all links to the redirect page, stating that they were Double redirects when they were not. - X201 (talk) 15:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Pretty sure they're double redirects, X->Y->Z is a double redirect, right? I just removed Y so that X->Z. JamaUtil (talk) 00:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • "X->Y->Z" isn't a double redirect. But that is just a side issue, the main point is what part of WP:NAME were you referring to when you moved the article? - X201 (talk) 08:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete SimCity (2013 video game) and move SimCity (2013 computer game) to "SimCity (2013 video game)", per WP:NCVG. Also suggest a snow close of this nomination.

    I'm not sure a WP:RM is necessary, HK, given the clear precedent. I'm sure the admin who closes this request can deal with it. --Izno (talk) 14:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm not sure what a snow close would do, since it's not clear what consensus is. I see one delete, one move, and one keep. JamaUtil (talk) 15:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • While the bolded statements differ, the comments following are clearly in consensus. -- ferret (talk) 15:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, I guess that's easier and less confusing. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ditto. - X201 (talk) 16:12, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete SimCity (2013 video game) and move SimCity (2013 computer game) to "SimCity (2013 video game)", per WP:NCVG and above comments from Izno, HK, X201. -- ferret (talk) 15:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and move per Izno/Ferret. the WP:VG project has favored the term "video game" for any computer-based game when disambig is needed, as is the case here. --MASEM (t) 18:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note

The OP has now moved the article again. It now resides at SimCity (2013 PC game) which is also against guidelines as it is not a platform specific remake/version of an already existing title. - X201 (talk) 08:26, 18 April 2012 (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.

Marquis Lí of Jin

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 Retraget to Marquis Li of Jin. Ruslik_Zero 16:43, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The title is based on a misreading of the obscure Chinese character (釐). I've moved the article to the correct name, but the redirect remains and may cause confusion with Marquis Li of Jin, a different person. It should be deleted to prevent confusion. --Zanhe (talk) 04:38, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Google translate says that character "釐" is "Lí", so just add hatnotes to both articles. 70.24.248.211 (talk) 06:52, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hatnote the two articles per anon. Neutral on which article the redirect should point to but tag with {{R with diacritics}}. Keep to help preserve the move history. Rossami (talk) 15:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Google translation is useless for ancient Chinese. Do a Google translation on the character's dictionary entry instead. You'll see that the character has three different pronunciations, but when used as a posthumous title, as in this case, it's exclusively pronounced Xi, and is now commonly written as 僖 (Xi), whose pronunciation is unambiguous. As for the move history, it's already preserved in the article's history. --Zanhe (talk) 16:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Marquis Li of Jin and provide a hat note pointing to Xi. "It's wrong" is by itself not a valid reason to delete a redirect, and now that there are other websites likely linking to it, the redirect should be retargeted to the correct article, with a hat note in case someone is looking for Li. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 19:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the main reason for deleting the redirect is not that it's wrong (although it is), but that it causes confusion: casual visitors linked to the page may get the wrong impression that Marquis Li and Marquis Xi are the same person. Besides, redirects with pinyin diacritics are rarely useful, as people almost never type them. There were two or three WP articles linking to the redirect, and I've already changed them all to Marquis Xi. I believe that in this case, the downside for causing confusion far outweighs the negligible benefit for navigation aid. --Zanhe (talk) 19:26, 16 April 2012 (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.

JIMBO WALES

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. JohnCD (talk) 20:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not a plausible typo. There is no reason which I can see to keep this page. If anything, it should be deleted and create-protected ("salted") to prevent usage by vandals. I am also proposing that any similar redirects also be deleted. 99.70.103.243 (talk) 02:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Page protection and especially preemptive protection (salting) is inherently hostile and anti-wiki. We do it when we must but our Protection Policy directs us to keep it to the minimum extent and duration necessary to protect the project. If a redirect can successfully preempt vandalism (and this one evidently has), that's a better answer. As to this one, "Jimbo" is the subject's commonly used name and redirects for capitalization variants are routine. Rossami (talk) 03:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep where's the typo? 70.24.248.211 (talk) 06:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In the search bar even if you use caps it proposes the normal un-capped version so there's no need really. Also, who would add a wikilink in full caps to an article (if you look at it, the answer is no one)? benzband (talk) 10:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The search box is far from the only method people use to find Wikipedia artcles, and of the myriad other methods there are many that are case sensitive. While it isn't a likely target for internal links, we cannot what links there are to it from outside Wikipedia. Stats.grok.se is case insensitive, so we can't know how many people use this (given that Jimbo Wales also exists]]. Thryduulf (talk) 18:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Proposal: The system should be programmed to automatically redirect from different capitalizations, similar to the "auto-redirection" that Wiktionary uses. This should eliminate this issue, and we will not have to worry about creating capitalization variants for every single page on Wikipedia, which wastes time which could otherwise be used for other purposes. Assuming that somebody actually does wish to create the different capitalization variant for good reason, (s)he can simply click the link in the upper left hand corner found on any redirected page, and follow the page creation prompts. (On another computer at a different location now. Was out of town. See my IP address confirmation I made before I left). 75.53.218.81 (talk) 01:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as plausible misspelling/miscapitalization.--Lenticel (talk) 00:41, 18 April 2012 (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/2012_April_16&oldid=1142587591"