Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 May 14

May 14

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 14, 2014.

Eresburg

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 procedural close, converted to article. Thanks, Bermicourt! --BDD (talk) 16:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion requested. "Eresburg" is not identical with the redirected lemma and leads to confusion with the German article de:Eresburg through linking by WikiData!. Der Spion (talk) 17:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - The history shows that the previous article was merged into Obermarsberg. Attribution will need to be considered. GB fan 18:03, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep'. No-brainer. The first sentence of the lede says (previously Eresburg). Si Trew (talk) 12:39, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The applicant is right: de:Eresburg deals with the old Saxon refuge castle, whereas Eresburg, which is linked by WikiData, redirects to the town of Obermarsberg. Either the redirect has to be deleted or, better, the linking at WikiData needs to be changed (I don't know how though).--89.0.233.167 (talk) 15:42, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. What am I missing here? de:Eresburg has an Interwiki link to this redirect: It should probably go to Obermarsberg. If the redirect is wrong, can you suggest where to put it? Obermarsberg says it was previously called Eresburg. But the redirect itself does not have any Interwiki links, so that is not helpful. In French it goes to fr:Château_d'Eresburg (Eresburg Castle), but the coords differ a little bit (not much) and the pic differs and these are not, I think, translations of each other: the French refers to the Saxon refuge castle. We don't have Eresburg Castle, though. We have it in Plattsdeutch (excuse lack of diacritical marks please) at nds:Eresborg but that's not linked to the English, so something has gone a bit wrong here with the transwiki. I thought there was also a SPanish interwiki link from one of the several but I can't find it now and neither es:Eresburg nor es:Eresborg exists.
English transwiki links also to sh:Obermarsberg (Serbo-Croat) which again has a different pic in the infobox for a small single-story house of some kind (my Serbo-Croat will not win any awards but I do know a Serbian and a Croatian and I am sure they can pick the bones out of it if I ask them) but again something is not tied up quite right here: that article links only to English and German but not to the French. There is a bit of vermicelli here to digest by us all.
I do know how, and I am quite willing to do it, but I should like consensus first. Si Trew (talk) 11:29, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You certainly have mine...--Der Spion (talk) 22:08, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A good person to ask for advice would be User:Bermicourt, who is a bit of an expert on castles in Europe. I'll put a note on his talk page asking him to comment. RomanSpa (talk) 11:04, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I wouldn't claim to be an expert, but I have translated numerous castle articles from German Wikipedia. I think the problem here is a mistranslation of de:Obermarsberg resulting in the misleading statement "Obermarsberg, previously Eresburg..." According to German Wikipedia, the Eresburg is the "largest, well-known, Old Saxon refuge castle", whereas Obermarsberg is a village, founded in 772, "on the site of the ... Eresburg." So they are not the same. If the Obermarsberg article had a section on the Eresburg, the re-direct would be fine; as it stands I don't think it helps. One way out of this is to create a separate article on the Eresburg, and to change the lede at Obermarsberg to something like "Obermarsberg is one of seventeen quarters in the municipality of Marsberg.... It is situated on the site of an Old Saxon hillfort, the Eresburg, on a hill 130 m above the Diemel River..." I am happy to create the Eresburg article, based on de:Eresburg if that helps. --Bermicourt (talk) 12:51, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Great idea! Please go for it.--Der Spion (talk) 15:15, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll need to wait for a consensus - right now there is a discussion tag at Eresburg and I don't want to waste time creating an article if the outcome is e.g. "delete". --Bermicourt (talk) 19:44, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the disc. tag is only referring to the awkward redirect! So there's no need to worry IMHO... Greetings,--Der Spion (talk) 11:23, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bermicourt, go for it! Generally speaking, you'd be right about not messing with something when there's a discussion tag, but RfD documentation explicitly says "Turning redirects into articles is wholly encouraged. Be bold." As a matter of practice, this applies even when the redirect is under discussion. (I can perhaps imagine a situation where this could be a form of disruption, i.e., if there's consensus against addressing a topic at all. But that's certainly not the case here.) --BDD (talk) 16:16, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree!--Der Spion (talk) 20:30, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree too, with thanks. RomanSpa (talk) 05:24, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay - working on it... --Bermicourt (talk) 06:10, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Go for it. For some reason I had completely forgotten "burg" is the German suffix to mean Castle. Which means that in other languages "Erensburg/Borg/berg Castle" is a bit redundant – but that's their choice. Si Trew (talk) 10:58, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
-borg I think is Scandinavian of some sort, but -berg is mountain, not castle. So there's nothing wrong with "Fooberg Castle," which may simply indicate a castle built on Foo Mountain. --BDD (talk) 16:22, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay the article is now translated and I have tidied up Obermarsburg as well.
Just to clarify: -burg is indeed "castle" and -berg is hill or mountain. They are often confused by English speakers who also tend to pronounce them identically, adding to the confusion. Burg is pronounced [roughly] as in "boor" and Berg as in "bear". --Bermicourt (talk) 11:06, 23 May 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.

User Principal Name

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. --BDD (talk) 16:11, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Has no inbound links of significance and the subject is not discussed in the article. In fact, cannot be discussed per WP:NOT; it is WikiBook material. Codename Lisa (talk) 13:10, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Codename Lisa, but you're pudding the carp before hors d'oeuvres. It could be discussed as something other than delete: Codename Lisa, remember this is Redirects for Discussion not Deletion so it helps if you explicitly say delete or retarget or whatever. I've added to your comment the delete which I assume is your intention to do, please remove it if I have mistaken your intention. Thanks for all your good work, at least one other editor notices it (as I gnome I have seen your name so many times.) Si Trew (talk) 02:35, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I know I am the kind of man to lead you up a blind alley and then leave you there, but putting the cart before the horse exists but is very unsatisfactory. It means a logical fallacy of assuming (with back logic) premises from conclusions, something that is more used in political rhetoric than in proper maths or science; but it does not mean what the article says. More work for Trew then! Si Trew (talk) 02:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Simon. Please don't tell any of these to User:Thumperward, okay? He does not even add boldfaced "Delete" or "Keep" when he is responding to an XFD, unlike what you did. He thinks it is non-neutral and that Wikipedia is not a place for voting. Well, he is an admin too! I'm just saying... the opinion differs. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 06:52, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the opinion differs and of course everyone is entitled to my own opinion! Thanks again for all your hard work — it is noticed by at least one other editor. The only reason I said so is that many newbies confuse this as "redirects for deletion" which is understandable when we have "articles for deletion", "candidates for speedy deletion" etc but actually it is for discussion and not all get deleted. As an admin you have a kinda responsibility to train them. I am not an admin, don't want to be, just a gnome. Si Trew (talk) 12:45, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Term arises from a specific commercial software implementation and is not widely used as a general "term of art". RomanSpa (talk) 11:17, 17 May 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.

The greatest Being

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 speedy deleted as an implausible recently-created redirect. To go into more detail, this redirect was created two days ago by a user with no other edits for religious POV reasons. As Kashmiri notes, "the greatest being" is an exceedingly unlikely Wikipedia search term; the improper capitalization also makes it ill-formed. This touches on several areas covered by speedy deletion criteria; if I had to pick one it would be CSD G6, unambiguously created in error. — Scott • talk 09:55, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading. The phrase "The greatest Being" is not unique to Sikhism, nor it is even common in Sikhism. Unlikely anyone would ever search Wikipedia for it; relatively few Google hits at all. Creation of this redirect follows recent GF but unnecessary (and now reverted) edits to Waheguru by an IP editor. kashmiri TALK 12:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Supreme Being as a plausible synonym.--Lenticel (talk) 00:06, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Lenticel but note the caps are a bit odd (no cap on G in greatest). The Greatest Being, The Great Being do not exist. Si Trew (talk) 02:49, 15 May 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_May_14&oldid=1039435646"