Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 August 27

August 27
The result of the debate was keep. WjBscribe 00:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Svensk → Swedish
Redirect title is not used in English, so no redirect is needed Tkynerd 00:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as it is a reasonable redirect for a term which somebody might run across and wish to look up. See also Espanol or Francais. If you want, it could become a disambig like Deutsch, but I wouldn't recommend it leading nowhere.   FrozenPurpleCube 00:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd have to disagree, per WP:NOT. Additionally, this is not an English word, nor is it regularly used in English despite being foreign (like, e.g., Götterdämmerung or esprit de corps). Since Wikipedia is not a dictionary, it certainly is not a multilingual dictionary. Given that, I find Espanol and Francais at least dubious, but I think one can at least say that they are likely to be encountered by a fairly significant number of English speakers in otherwise entirely English-language contexts. That doesn't apply to svensk. --Tkynerd 01:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't have to be regularly used in English for it to be desirable for it to lead to the appropriate location. It's not like you can show definitively whether or not a significant number of people will use it on Wikipedia.  This is a redirect of convenience, and I see nothing in your reasoning that persuades me there is an actual problem here.  You're mostly saying "It's not necessary" which is a bad way to try to convince anybody since redirects are cheap.  It's still useful.  FrozenPurpleCube 02:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep. In general, I'd agree with Tkynerd; however, this does not seem to be just a translation from a random language, but rather a the original term. Am I mistaken? — Black Falcon (Talk) 02:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: a redirect from the native language for a non-English topic is almost always useful, as with a Korean book, a Japanese film, a Russian band, a Greek mountain, or a French tower. In this case, the topic is the language itself, but the same principle applies.  Not everyone has English as a first language.  These redirects can be very helpful to domain experts whose English is weak, but whose knowledge is still very useful.  Among others.  Xtifr tälk 10:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)  Switch to neutral, since apparently I was confused, and this is Norwegian and Danish for Swedish, but not Swedish for Swedish, per the extensive discussion below which has left me not sure what to think any more.  Xtifr tälk 12:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as a plausible search term that redirects appropriately. There exists similar ones for other languages. -- Flyguy649 talk contribs 19:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment How do those who want to keep this redirect (and I'm inclined to be persuaded by your arguments) think we should handle the inevitable confusion that results from this kind of unexpected redirect? Francais and Espanol redirect to their respective language pages; this page redirects to Swedish, which is a dab page and consequently should not contain any encyclopedic content, like an explanation of the native term for Swedish. Svensk should not redirect to Swedish language because the Swedish word for the Swedish language is svenska rather than svensk. When I originally ran across this redirect (because I dab incoming links to Swedish), I changed it to a brief explanation of the term to avoid the confusion, but User:Stemonitis has twice converted it back to a redirect. Thoughts? --Tkynerd 22:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * What if we keep it redirecting to Swedish (the disambiguation page) and add a to it (actually, I just did anyways)? The Wiktionary entry for svensk asserts that svensk is not only the adjective Swedish but also the masculin noun for the Swedish language. That's almost exactly what is listed at the disambiguation page.  Big Nate 37 (T) 22:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * (1) If, like most English speakers, I didn't speak Swedish or any of the other Scandinavian languages, and I went straight to Swedish, I would wonder what that Wiktionary link was doing there. That just adds more confusion, IMO. (2) The word for the Swedish language in Swedish is always svenska; if Wiktionary asserts otherwise, it is unambiguously wrong. (Svensk is the masculine noun in Swedish for a Swedish person, not for the language.) --Tkynerd 12:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it would be appropriate to retarget the redirect to Swedish people? — Black Falcon (Talk) 16:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That might work, although I think the words svenska folket and svenskar are too much obscured on that page for the connection to be obvious after a user is redirected. That would need to be rectified, IMO. --Tkynerd 01:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If a user doesn't know why the link is there and is curious, one click will clear it up. And what do you mean "if" that's what Wiktionary says? I gave you a direct link; if our sister project is so clearly wrong just go fix it. Please don't presume to be all-knowing if you are too lazy to click a link I gave you as supporting evidence; can you provide a counterexample proving that your claim is correct?  Big Nate 37 (T) 17:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The user shouldn't have to click past the page they've gotten to to figure out how they got there, nor should the user be expected to deal with out-of-place non-English words on the English Wikipedia. --Tkynerd 01:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see having to "deal" with seeing the word svensk as being a major problem, but that's a matter of opinion. Is presenting the English Wiktionary svensk link to those searching for Swedish worse than not properly informing the people looking for information on svensk? If we disagree, that's fine. Per bold, revert, discuss, you're welcome to remove my addition of the Wiktionary link template.  Big Nate 37 (T) 15:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Your tone is out of place, rude, and fails to assume good faith. I missed your link to that page on Wiktionary; that's no reason for you to accuse me of laziness. Additionally, if you read the Wiktionary definition carefully, you would find that it does not define svensk as a word for the Swedish language; it merely says that it can refer to something that pertains to the Swedish language. Not the same thing at all. Finally, how on earth could I provide a "counterexample proving" that svensk never refers to the Swedish language in Swedish? It's impossible to prove a negative, especially with a counterexample. If you know Swedish, this might help. --Tkynerd 01:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ahem, since Svensk doesn't lead directly to the article on the Swedish Language, that's a non-issue. The question is not what the word means, but rather, what's the most helpful to people on this version of Wikiedpia?  Is it a dead entry going nowhere?  Is it a link to the current disambig?  A disambig at Svensk?  If there's some perceived problem with clarity, a note referencing that information would seem to be the sensible solution.  FrozenPurpleCube 04:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Both BigNate and I were responding to a suggestion that Svensk redirect to Swedish language. If the entry is to be kept, I really think that changing it to a brief article summarizing what the word means, with appropriate wikilinks, would be the most helpful and clear option. --Tkynerd 18:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You're right, I did fail to assume good faith; I apologize. If you look at the Wiktionary link svensk again, the definition as a Norwegian noun is "svensk m. (definite singular svensken; uncountable) 1. Swedish language" (emphasis mine). I think the point of contention here that this is the Norwegian and not Swedish. I admit I'm not familiar enough with Scandinavian language to judge whether that is insignificant, and I suppose you're implying that it is—fine. From sv:svensk I can understand enough to think that it is exclusively an adjective in Swedish, either meaning "from Sweden", "being Swedish", or something pertaining to the language (still as an adjective). As far as your talk about proving a negative, I'm not out for a rigorous mathematical conclusion—the link you've supplied is quite sufficient (assuming I understand it).  Big Nate 37 (T) 15:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And you're right -- because I do speak Swedish, I basically skipped the Norwegian definition, so I missed that. I'm sorry about that. Svensk refers to the Swedish language in both Norwegian and Danish, but not in Swedish, as I mentioned before. I think the great majority of uses of svensk that an English speaker will be likely to encounter are Swedish links, so the intended meaning is probably one of the Swedish ones: (1) noun, a Swedish person; (2) adjective, having to do with Sweden or Swedes; (3) adjective, having to do with the Swedish language. That said, see my response to FrozenPurpleCube above. If this is kept and turned into a brief article, I think it would be helpful to note that the word refers to the Swedish language in Norwegian and Danish, something I didn't think of when I originally turned it into an article. Thanks. --Tkynerd 18:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - useful redirect, no reason to delete.  Melsaran  (talk) 18:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

James Gleason ((actor, May 23, 1882 – April 12, 1959)) → James Gleason (Actor)
The result of the debate was James Gleason (James Gleason (actor, May 23, 1882 – April 12, 1959), created by the user during page moves, speedily deleted. mattbr 19:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC) Redirect was mistakenly created insteaed of creating disambiguation page. Mabibliophile 19:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC) The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Cross-namespace redirects to inactive project pages
The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 10:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC) These are cross-namespace redirects to inactive pages in the Wikipedia: namespace. They serve no useful purpose as the target pages are only retained for historical interest so the current traffic to these pages will be extremely low and it is very highly unlikely that anyone unfamiliar with the Wikipedia namespace would be looking for these pages in the article namespace. They may also appear in search results for terms containing some of the words, cluttering them and possibly causing confusion. None of them have a significant history and none of them have any incoming links except from CNR lists. mattbr 15:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Probecom (hist) ⇒ Mentorship Committee
 * MentCom (hist) ⇒ Mentorship Committee
 * Mentor committe (hist) ⇒ Mentorship Committee
 * Requests for rollback (hist) ⇒ Requests for rollback privileges
 * AMA coordinator (hist) ⇒ Association of Members' Advocates

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete. As the nominator says, having cross-namespace redirects to inactive project-space pages is actively harmful. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agree with Gavia immer. - Mtmelendez (Talk 10:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Aarktica 15:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - as per all the above ChrisDHDR 15:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - much of the time, cross-namespace rdirects are not a good idea, and rdirects to inactive WP space pages are worse. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 05:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

'Saint Louis Blues' -> St. Louis Blues (song)
The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 00:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC) I am using this redirect as a test to determine if ALL redirects using single quotes when referring to something usually using double quotes. I had brought this up on the talk page to no avail. My logic is, if someone is going to bother to type quotes at all, who would use a single (') rather than a double ("). There are exceptions of course, but not in this case.  Again, I want to use this as a test to see if I should bother looking in to the mass of others.--Old Hoss 01:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC) The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination.  Please do not modify it.
 * There are some people who use single quotes as the primary form of quotation. That being said, I don't see a need for such redirects. Shalom Hello 14:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Redirects are cheap. --Aarktica 14:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete not because of single quotes vs. double quotes (single quotes are actually preferred in the UK), but because a redirect with name in quotes (whether single or double) is generally useless: not a plausible search target, and shouldn't be linked. Xtifr tälk 14:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Xtifr. — Black Falcon (Talk) 18:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Xtifr. --Tkynerd 00:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Xtifr ChrisDHDR 16:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:Lucent Spinoffs -> Alcatel-Lucent
The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 00:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC) Unused cross-namespace redirect. --MZMcBride 02:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete - per nom. Onnaghartl ! co 14:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Aarktica 14:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. ChrisDHDR 16:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:London stations extra -> Template:Infobox London station
The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 00:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC) Template redirect without any conceivable use. --MZMcBride 02:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete - per nom. Onnaghartl ! co 14:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Aarktica 14:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep unless... This looks like it was left over from a merger. If so, the GDFL requires it to be kept, though it should be tagged R from merge.  But I'm not completely sure, and if it turns out I'm wrong, then deletion would be fine.  Xtifr tälk 14:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - I cannot see any proof that it may be the result of a merger, so it is not required. It has a confusing name and no conceivable use. ChrisDHDR 16:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Krka (disambig) → Krka
The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 00:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC) Note: page "Krka (disambiguation)" also exists. This is a misnamed DAB page! Nominated for deletion because most (if not all) people will go to the correct DAB page name. JohnI 04:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments: JohnI 04:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Newcomers may be confused and think that this is an alternative allowable spelling of "disambiguation",
 * 2) The redirect makes no sense, the standard is to type "Krka" or "Krka (disambiguation)". As this is an uncommon spelling (ie "disambig") almost no one will know it exists.
 * 3) Therefore, because it is both harmful (confusing), and non-useful I propose it should be deleted.
 * Leave it alone because it costs more in resources to delete it than it does to ignore it. It is not "misnamed"; this was the old naming convention for disambiguation pages.  If you'd looked at the page history, you'd have seen that this page was moved to the new naming convention back in Feb 2006.  The redirect was automatically created during the pagemove and documents the change in location.  I'll concede that it's no longer particularly useful since it's probably been around long enough that any editors of the original name have now found the new title but this redirect is not in any way harmful.  It's not the sort of thing that any newcomer will find unless they go hunting for it.  Rossami (talk) 05:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: 1. Any newcomer can find it by clicking ->What links here - Voila! There it is! 2. The only basis for keeping redirects is that they are useful. JohnI 05:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And why would any newcomer be any more confused by it than by all the rest of our historical references and changes? These historical redirects are functionally no different than the old CamelCase redirects.  On your second point, you have it exactly backward.  The only reason to delete a redirect is because it is harmful.  Please re-read the "avoid deleting a redirect if" section at the top of the page.  Remember that what's "useful" to you or I may be different from what someone else finds useful.  Rossami (talk) 13:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "And why would any newcomer be any more confused by it than by all the rest of our historical references and changes?" Well, just because more misleading things exist doesn't mean we can't change what we think is unhelpful. By keeping this we encourage folks to create (disambig)-suffixed redirects. Some editors, myself included, see this as a bad thing.  Big Nate 37 (T) 14:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Krka is a disambig page - spelt misleadingly wrong. Onnaghartl ! co 14:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: we have ample precedent for deleting this old "(disambig)" redirects. They're harmful insofar as the suggest a bad precedent and naming protocol, and have absolutely no benefit or use to counterbalance that.  See:
 * Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 August 19
 * Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 August 11
 * Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 August 4
 * Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 July 29
 * As a side note, it is Rossami who should re-read the criteria for deletion. We do delete useless redirects—we just set the bar for defining "useful" very low.  Xtifr tälk 14:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete. Having "(disambig)" as part of a title is a Wikipedia creation. For the reasons provided by the nom and by Xtifr, it's best to phase these out completely. — Black Falcon (Talk) 17:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - having (disambig) in the name will only encourage old habits to continue instead of dying out, it is therefore harmful should its existance continue and not a convienance. ChrisDHDR 16:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)