Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 September 13

September 13

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 13, 2014.

Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic

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 no consensus. While this would be better off as an article, thus validating the argument for deletion, I do find Geo Swan's arguments for keeping fairly convincing. --BDD (talk) 15:06, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic → Transnistria (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

WP:REDLINK - TheChampionMan1234 21:42, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now maybe nominator could offer a coherent explanation as to why WP:REDLINK justifies deleting this redirect. Maybe the rest of us would find that explanation convincing. But, unless the nominator offers a convincing explanation I think the redirect should be kept. Geo Swan (talk) 01:40, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, you would probably be better off doing a piped link. But since it is there, and in use, it does no harm to stay but causes harm to remove. So I change my opinion to Keep. Si Trew (talk) 09:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic is already a redirect to Transnistria, and the meaning of the PMR is explained in the target article. That should allow you to write 'the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic', which should be enough to identify the reference. An entire redirect devoted just to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs seems like overkill, especially when the article you are using as a target, Transnistria, doesn't have any text about the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. EdJohnston (talk) 04:41, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. (Don't count me twice, by the way, but this is not an opinion poll). It is there and used in articles, Geo says on his (or my?) talk page, articles that he has made or improved. I don't see it is politically loaded and nobody has suggested so, so I think we can all discount that. It is used on articles and makes Wikipedia better. A WP:PIPE would have been better, maybe, but this does no harm, however sesquipedalian it is. Geo says on our brief convo on talk, "I wasn't expecting it to be searched for, but that I used it in articles for linking" (not Geo's exact words but I hope the meaning). That can ony be a good thing to improve English Wikipedia's coverage of articles related to Moldavia. Si Trew (talk) 09:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • With regard to piped links versus redirects. For my first 5000 or so edits, back in 2004 and 2005, I did use piped links, as you suggest. In particular I made dozens of piped links to the article on the old reliable Soviet assault rifle known as, either, the "Kalashnikov", or the "AK 47". The source documents I was using spelled the rifle's name a dozen different ways, including: "AK 47", "AK-47", "AK47", "AK 74", "AK-74", "AK74", "Kalashnikov", "Kalishnakov", "Kalishnikov", and "Klash-n-krors". After creating those dozens of piped links I decided I had followed a wrong-heated approach. One of the reasons I decided is in WP:Piped link#When not to use, which explicitly says:
      {| class="wikitable"

|

...It is generally not good practice to pipe links simply to avoid redirects. The number of links to a redirect page can be a useful gauge of when it would be helpful to spin off a subtopic of an article into its own page...

|}

An additional reason to prefer redirects over piped links is that when you use a redirect you don't have to care where the material on that topic is.
  1. If the target article pointed to by a redirect is moved, we have a robot to take care of that. This nice well behaved robot spends its time cleaning up double redirects. I don't believe there is a corresponding robot prowling our documents, fixing piped links.
  2. Using redirects reduces the cognitive burden on contributors. Should I have to remember where the base article is, when it could have been renamed at any time? Or consider the AK74. I am not a real weapons expert, and, at first, I thought it was just a mis-spelling of AK47. Actually, it is a more recent rifle, that looks almost identical to the original rifle. If I link to the name I find in the document, it is a lower cognitive burden. I don't have to be a weapons expert who knows that AK74 is not a typo, and is really a different rifle. Geo Swan (talk) 15:52, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, certainly piped links can be WP:ASTONISHing, and I'd rather have things being more obvious; at least at the top of the article it will say "redirected from Xanadu (China)" or whatever, whereas pipes are essentially hidden (sure, depending on your browser they may be in the infobar or whatever, but that is rather subtle to most readers I imagine: and invisible to people with a printed copy). If the target makes sense I like to pipe, but for trivial kinda things, like when the automated pluralisation after a link foxes it: never to disguise or surprise. Your example of AK47 I think is very good, I imagine all are likely search terms. Si Trew (talk) 12:00, 22 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.

Jin Zhengri

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.

Re-closed the discussion as no consensus. There are two competing arguments and after 4.5 months passing since the nomination neither has attained consensus. Both lines of argument have their merit and selecting one is a super-vote. Though WP:FORRED points to deletion, this is an essay to which the guidline WP:RFD#HARMFUL takes precedence. Crucially, no suggestion has been made that this redirect is in any way harmful and the default for long-established redirects (in this case over 7 years old) that are harmless is to keep. Just Chilling (talk) 18:43, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the discussion was Delete. (non-admin closure) — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 00:35, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not Chinese. TheChampionMan1234 05:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Isn't that the Chinese translation of Kim Jong-il's name? The "Dear Leader" may not be Chinese but I can imagine Mandarin speakers visiting the English Wikipedia searching with this pinying. Altamel (talk) 23:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What on Earth are you talking about? That doesn't look anything like Chinese, which doesn't even use an alphabet, much less the Latin one. No Chinese speaker will search for a name using the Latin alphabet, either here or on Chinese Wikipedia. Not to mention that this person isn't Chinese. We're not a translation dictionary, if we kept this kind of redirect, we'd have hundreds of redirects for various languages and how they spell his name. And so, delete. Read WP:FORRED for a better understanding. Champion, this is not the first time someone has told you to actually explain your nominations, and apparently it won't be the last. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:22, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Oiyarbepsy. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 17:39, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Altamel is quite right, Chinese people do use spellings like this to look up Korean terms. Stats can prove that, as there are around 5-10 hits for this redirect every month over the years. Whether this person is Chinese or not is irrelevant. Americans call a German city Munich even though Germans don't call it that. Please read [1]. For sources using "Jin Zhengri", see [2] [3] [4] [5] and search for the term. As for the argument that "we'd have hundreds of redirects for various languages and how they spell his name", I challenge anyone to provide 100+ ways to spell Kim Jong-il's name in Latin for various languages that have appeared in sources.
As for the rule in WP:FORRED to avoid "foreign-language" redirects, I need to make it clear that the Korean Hanja is not foreign to Chinese at all. I am bad at explaining languages to nonspeakers, so let me give Western examples instead: Alex Rodriguez, an American, Matthew Spiranovic, an Aussie, Steve Ogrizovic, an English, all born and raised in an English-speaking nation. Their pages have redirects from Alex Rodríguez, Matthew Špiranović and Steve Ogrizović respectively, even though in their countries none of these diacritics is used in writing. This is comparable here. Nobody is claiming that Kim Jong-il is Chinese, or that North Korea is part of China, or Koreans = Chinese, or Koreans use "Jin Zhengri", or that "Jin Zhengri" needs to be mentioned in the article. It is simply to make it convenient for English speakers who are also fluent in Chinese and knowledgeable in Chinese transliteration but have no knowledge of how Koreans transliterate their names (which are based on Chinese characters). And this is only done to Asian people with "Chinese names", like Koreans. No Chinese will do this for non-Asian Americans, for example, Beilake Aobama Balake Aobama Beilake Oubama Balake Oubama or even Aobama and Oubama are all blanks. Timmyshin (talk) 20:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently the stats you show are lower then normal level of bots' activity. P.S.: I believe WP:FORRED discourages the rationales like this one. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 18:50, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:FORRED. So what, we're going to keep any Asian-language redirect to any other Asian topic? I don't think so. --BDD (talk) 00:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 11:48, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Participants should "Per WP:FORRED" is a weak argument when not accompanied by a reason why it applies in the specific case. That guideline says that such redirects "should generally be avoided unless a well-grounded rationale can be provided for their inclusion." Here, a rationale for inclusion has been provided and so it should be discussed whether that rationale is sufficient to justify the redirect or not. Thryduulf (talk) 11:48, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:Altamel. Geo Swan (talk) 01:58, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BDD. The tiny minority of English-speakers who can read the Chinese characters for the name of this quite famous person, but don't know who they refer to, already have the redirect 金正日 to aid them - equally convenient, without being grossly misleading. 61.10.165.33 (talk) 06:20, 27 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.

Кarl Marx

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. Magioladitis (talk) 13:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this begins with a Cyrillic character. - TheChampionMan1234 11:43, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per The Champ. Unlikely typo. Si Trew (talk) 13:27, 13 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.

国庆节

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 国庆日. (non-admin closure) — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 01:07, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This term is not just restricted to the PRC, it is used by Chinese people around the world to refer to the national day of their respective country as well. TheChampionMan1234 00:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep this redirect is only relevant to regions where Chinese is a legal language. It is not appropriate to refer to other countries that are not Chinese. If any other Chinese jurisdiction uses this phrase as the name of the day, then a disambiguation page can be created. This is not Chinese Wikipedia, so non Chinese topics are not relevant. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:59, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • At the PRC article, you could also just add a hatnote indicating {{redirect-distinguish|国庆节|国庆日}} instead.  ; The option presented by the nominator, of retargeting to 国庆日 is acceptable to me, since, from a grammar and world selection point of view, holiday (节) is a minor variation on day (日) in this context. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 06:22, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question what is the translation of this? Part of a complete nomination here is to translate any foreign phrases, and if you can't do that, you have no business nominating it. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:16, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: as I gather, this term refers partiularily to PRC, so this redirect is appropriate. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 17:17, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a dab page at 国庆日, maybe retargeting there would be an option? TheChampionMan1234 23:05, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • See, if this term means literally "national day of some country" and is used in China with name of country, it should be just deleted per WP:FORRED; if it is used exclusively to refer to the National Day of the People's Republic of China (as the article and DAB imply), it should point to that article. This DAB does not seem to be a good target anyway. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 23:33, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is an example of the term used in Taiwan TheChampionMan1234 03:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 11:15, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak retarget to 国庆日. I say weak because I'm relying on Google Translate, which renders this as "National Day." If that's correct, retargeting to that dab is appropriate. If there's a nuance the translation isn't reflecting and this refers exclusively to the PRC holiday, keeping is more appropriate. --BDD (talk) 15:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BDD: Yes, the two terms (国庆节 and 国庆日) are interchangeable, here is more evidence that this term isn't used to refer exclusively to the PRC's National Day. - TheChampionMan1234 04:49, 22 October 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.

트위터

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) 11:46, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not especially Korean. - TheChampionMan1234 07:09, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOT a translation dictionary. Si Trew (talk) 22:16, 13 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.

Руссия

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) 15:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This does not appear to be a valid alternative name in any language. - TheChampionMan1234 02:54, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I may well be mistaken here, but I think it may be a brand of vodka made in the UK. For some reason UK vodka tends to be this cod-Cyrillic with reversed Rs and Ns and so on even though it is made in Luton. But I couldn't guarantee or check this. Anything that says "Imperial Russian Vodka", especially if it has lots of seals and stuff to Nicholas II of Russia or whatever, is almost certainly not Russian. Just somehow this rings a bell. My first hit on Google was to YouTube here which has the title both in Cyrillic/Russian and English ("Иисус, Россия, водка!"/ "Jesus, Russia, vodka!"). How faithful that is I am not qualified to say, but there might be some bones in it. Si Trew (talk) 22:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I see now it is not "Руссия" but "Россия"; but it did get me my first hit via Google. Whether that makes it a candidate for being an {{R from misspelling}} I shall leave to others. My own inclination is that it is wandering too far off the beaten track. Si Trew (talk) 22:31, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Si Trew's second comment. Redirects from foreign-language /misspellings are generally unhelpful either to English speakers or fluent speakers of the foreign language, and possibly misleading to some others users, like those who speak the relevant language badly and don't realise this is a wrong spelling. 61.10.165.33 (talk) 06:27, 27 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.

Human life cycle

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 Human life. I've tagged it with {{R with possibilities}}, though. --BDD (talk) 15:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not synonymous. I failed to find where in the article it talks about a human life cycle. Maybe this redirect should be expanded into an article of its own? Mr. Guye (talk) 01:46, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I like this new idea. Maybe. Mr. Guye (talk) 21:35, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Human life, although I could also see us having an article on this. It would say something like, The Human life cycle is the biological life cycle of human beings over the course of the human lifespan, etc., and would cover the biological life cycle stages as they occur in human life - birth, maturing, mating, raising a family, aging, death. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 22:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But that would be pretty much the lifecycle of any animal, be it a louse or a chimpanzee. I think "human" is the keyword here, and why "biological life cycle" is too vague. Nothing wrong with that article existing, but "human life cycle" is overspecific to redirect there. Might as well R to My Grandfather's Clock,, by your reasoning. Si Trew (talk) 15:46, 15 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_September_13&oldid=1138579877"