Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 August 9

August 9

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 9, 2014.

Jazzi Peak

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. As a normal editorial action I will add a mention of this term to the lead of the target article. Thryduulf (talk) 15:36, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target article. Launchballer 13:58, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and mention: translation of the native name to English. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 14:48, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete (I made this redirect a long time ago but I don't remember why and I wouldn't do it now). "Jazzi peak" is not a real name, just my literal translation from Italian. And it could be also "Jazzi summit", "Jazzi mountain" etc.. So I don't think we should keep this redirect, but I don't really mind it either. ZachG (Talk) 15:30, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep this is why redirects should sometimes have documentation. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 07:08, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This appears to be pretty direct translation (A form like "Peak of Jazzi" would be very uncommon in English). I don't think it's at all harmful or misleading. --BDD (talk) 15:54, 20 September 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.

Preventive medicine in islam

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 September 21#Preventive medicine in islam

Witches' milk

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) 13:15, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

not sure about this - does it make sense to keep such spelling variations as redirects? Richiez (talk) 11:16, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: pretty valid {{R from misspelling}}, and probably even {{R from plural}} (I don't know whether plural form is common). While wording of nomination implies deletion, no deletion rationale is presented or is obvious from situation. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 12:58, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep spelling variations are why redirects exist -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 07:08, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep plausible plural form -Lenticel (talk) 00:53, 12 August 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.

Ukraine map

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Maps of Ukraine. --BDD (talk) 14:03, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term. - TheChampionMan1234 07:37, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to commons:Atlas of Ukraine or delete per WP:NOT: this is likely search term, but this subject is outside the project's scope. We have Wikimedia Commons for these things. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 09:06, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at best it could point to Geography of Ukraine -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 07:09, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to the geography article. If you come here and want a map of Ukraine, you'll get the best maps at the geography article. Nyttend (talk) 15:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Geography of Ukraine. Lugia2453 (talk) 19:02, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Nyttend and Lugia2453: FWIW Geography of Ukraine only contains two maps of Ukraine – administrative division and physical. Why do you think that this search term applies only to these maps? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 11:30, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because it's the most relevant, and because nobody's provided a better en:wp target. Nyttend (talk) 12:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Nyttend: And what is wrong with soft redirect from unencyclopedic subject (rightfully missing from Wikipedia) to vastly more relevant target on sister project? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 20:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Changing my vote. Retarget to Maps of Ukraine, an encyclopedic subject. Nyttend (talk) 00:36, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Actually, Dmitrij, it wasn't a find — I just finished writing the article twenty minutes ago, and I changed my vote one minute later. Nyttend (talk) 00:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Maps of Ukraine per above. --Lenticel (talk) 03:04, 13 August 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.

South-East Ukraine

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Novorossiya. --BDD (talk) 13:38, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite sure what I should do with these. - TheChampionMan1234 07:32, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget both to Novorossiya: both current targets are inappropriate. The term "Юго-Восточная Украина" is a disambiguated reference to the geopolitical region "Eastern Ukraine" (the latter name is claimed by more prominent economical region "Eastern Ukraine"). Despite its name and maps in Russian Wikipedia article this region does not match territory of South Ukraine and East Ukraine. The division mostly refers the prevelence of political views rising from historical split of modern-day Ukraine between Austro-Hungary and Russian Empire, so retargetting these pages to the section about modern use of the name of historical entity that gave birth to this item of aforementioned geopolitical division makes most sense to me.
    Still, I would strongly prefer a different target, because currently the term "Novorossiya" is pushed by Russia, and Wikipedia should not take sides in 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine.
    Whatever happens to these redirects, Southeastern Ukraine should be tagged with {{R with possibilities}}. While it qualifies for WP:RED, I strongly oppose deletion, because the red link will quickly turn into an outrageously biased article. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 10:37, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore / retarget to Novorossiya: In the Russian language the word Юго-Восточная Украина is used interchangeable with Novorossiya, often in reference to a proposed political entity. This combines South Ukraine and East Ukraine but excludes Central Ukraine and West Ukraine. South-East Ukraine is a word-for-word translation and does not in itself have any other meaning in the English language. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 19:52, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget South-East, keep Southeastern. We generally have articles with this kind of title, and they almost always cover generic regions of a country; unless someone should write an article about the southeastern parts of Ukraine, including history well before the recent conflict, we'd do best to have them as redirects to the eastern part of the country. Having them go to something on the current conflict will be surprising and not particularly helpful. Nyttend (talk) 11:58, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why Eastern Ukraine? Why not Southern Ukraine? P.S.: Novorossiya is about historical entity, not about current coflict. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 13:07, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Eastern not southern because it seemed to make more sense, i.e. the eastern region seemed to be closer to the Platonic form of "southeastern" (to be all philosophical about it) than the southern region did, especially since the latter goes all the way to the tripoint with Moldova and Romania. Thank you for your PS — I was unaware of the term being used before the last twelve months (I've read a good deal of Russian history; wonder why I've never heard it before?), so I figured it was something just now being used by the separatists. Since you've so clearly proven me wrong, I can't help but change my vote to retarget both to Novorossiya. Nyttend (talk) 21:31, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Apparently it is an alias for Novorossiysk Governorate, and indeed the term was used well before 2014 crysis. Eg. the term may be found in Klyuchevsky, Vasily. "Лекция 41". Курс русской истории [The course of the Russian history] (in Russian). ISBN 5-244-00072-1: {{cite book}}: External link in |sectionurl= (help); Unknown parameter |sectionurl= ignored (|section-url= suggested) (help)

          В состав русского государства постепенно входят Русь Малая, Белая и, наконец, Новороссия, новый русский край, образовавшийся путем колонизации в южнорусских степях.

          Admittedly Klyuchevsky does not define the region, but definition may be found in Семёновъ, П. (1867). Географическо-статистическій словарь Россійской Имепріи [Geographical and statistical dictionary of Russian Empire]. Vol. III (4 ed.). pp. 535–536, where it is stated to include Kherson, Taurida and Yekaterinoslav governorates (see on contemporary map). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 23:01, 16 August 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.

M'sia

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. Thryduulf (talk) 14:40, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is by no means an abbreviation for Malaysia - TheChampionMan1234 07:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: the barely avoids WP:CSD#G1. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 10:43, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: extremely common abbreviation for Malaysia. Appears in more than a hundred current articles on Google News.
  • Note: an IP attempted to add this note yesterday but was stopped by the abuse filter. See [1] for details. I have no comment myself. Nyttend (talk) 15:03, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Those news results are very convincing. TheChampionMan1234, Dmitrij, do you still feel the same? --BDD (talk) 13:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per anon. --Lenticel (talk) 16:18, 20 September 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.

Current events

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to News. This was close voting-wise, so a rationale is warranted. First of all, this is a cross-namespace redirect. While there are editors who think mainspace to portalspace redirects shouldn't be considered as such, it does meet the definition. Second, I found John Blackburne's arguments very convincing: that unlike, say, Speedy Delete, this is likely to be used as a link in articles, increasing the importance that it have a mainspace target. It's also worth considering that were we to have this as a CNR, WP:ITN might be a better target. (For what it's worth, the portal just looks like a recent archive of ITN.)
I suspect that converting this redirect away from being a CNR will make this less of an issue in the future. --BDD (talk) 13:33, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate CNR. - TheChampionMan1234 00:39, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • REtarget to news -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:40, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: IMO this is the rare case of appropriate CNR, as the search term "current events" is most likely used in attempt to find out the list of articles about current events. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 10:41, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirects to Portal space should not be considered cross-space redirects. The whole point of this is that we don't take readers to a non-reader portion of the site - but Portals are written for readers. Thus, Article -> Portal should never be considered a cross-space redirect and such targets should be kept as appropriate. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to news: there is a link to the Portal on News (disambiguation), and the portal isn't hard to find for the basic user considering we have a big link to it on the Main Page labeled "more current events" in the ITN section. —Akrabbimtalk 13:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • FWIW not everyone uses Main Page. (I don't even remember last time I saw it.) And news is very bad target for this redirect, as news are reports of current events, not the events themselves. It is just like retargetting orange to juice. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 02:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • the portal is not about the topic of "current events" either, it is news stories about current events. however "current events" is sometimes used as a synonym for "news" -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 07:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • retarget to news. I stumbled across this in the body of an article and should not be taken out of article space if I clicked on it. Portal links belong in the relevant sections not looking to all the world like article links. The portal can be added to any article that benefits from it in the proper place.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 17:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. People searching for this are best served by a link to the current events portal per the previous RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 22:26, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not people looking for it that's the problem; it's that it's used inline in articles so it looks like a link to another article. Even those searching for it, many if not most will be looking for a topic on to current events, not for WP's coverage of current events (which anyway is at WP:ITN).--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 22:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then the links should be fixed and hatnotes used. Thryduulf (talk) 07:10, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • By fixing the link do you mean retarget it, then put a hatnote at the top of the target page for anyone who ends up there erroneously ? As that's the only easy fix. I hope you don't mean checking all the pages the link is used in and manually fixing them; that would be a massive amount of work, and wouldn't actually fix the problem as editors would keep adding it.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 12:40, 18 September 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_August_9&oldid=1085561788"