Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 April 24

April 24
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 24, 2011

Datang town (Chengdu Datang)



 * 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. It can be re-nommed in a couple months, but no sooner to allow for the apparent issues to settle.  Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 04:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * → Datang, Pujiang County, Sichuan (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Delete for the following reasons:
 * 1) Confusing: Implies that Datang is part of the Chengdu Metropolitan Area when in fact it is rural. A typical Chinese would only use "X, Prefecture-level city" if X were part of Prefecture's (i.e. Chengdu) metro area, otherwise the county-level division (in this case Pujiang County) is used to disambiguate.
 * 2) What is in the parentheses is a romanisation of an East Asian practise, namely listing the political divisions in decreasing scope. It is simply inappropriate for anything on EN-Wiki written in English to be like this.
 * 3) Does not disambiguate anything, as the name of the town is in the parentheses, which serve as a means of disambiguating.
 * 4) It is only getting hits because when typing in "Datang Town", this re-direct loads as a suggestion. HXL's  Roundtable  and  Record  15:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep because nothing has changed since the last discussion finished 10 days ago. While it did end in no consensus, it's way, way too soon for any hope of a different outcome - the usual advice is to wait around six months at least. Thryduulf (talk) 16:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * To be blunt, there were simply no real arguments given in that debate. Only poor excuses made by un-knowledgeable users such as "helps document page history" and "it gets hits" (it's a redirect; obviously it "gets hits") helped deter an admin who knows not enough, if not nothing, about what I am talking about in two of my four points here.
 * And I didn't think of my 1st justification the last time around, which, as it basically states the re-direct is mis-leading/confusing, should lead to greater support for deletion. The reasoning won't change so long as Pujiang County is a county; only the participating body will change. Hence another reason for the renomination. -- HXL's Roundtable  and  Record  17:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As apparently one of the "un-knowledgeable users" who made "poor excuses" last time, I take exception to the tone of your comment. However:
 * Not all redirects do get hits and just getting no hits isn't a reason, on it's own, to delete a redirect anyway.
 * Redirects that are used are presumed useful (because people are using them) until shown otherwise or that there it would be better to delete it for some other reason
 * It is impossible to know where pages are getting hits from - it could be the search box, it could be external links, or search engine hits.
 * Redirects like this do document the page history, and as we are required to do just that by the GFDL license we have to have a very good reason to delete them
 * The redirect might not be used by a native Chinese person, but this is a global encyclopaedia and it is not inconceivable for a western user think of Chinese places as being structured the same way as western ones (or vice versa). Nor is it improbable that there will be people who are slightly familar with both styles to mix them.
 * The discussion last time did not come to any consensus that the redirect was harmful or confusing, and as the participatory body is actually more than likely to be pretty much identical, given the recency of the last discussion (The participants at RfD are nowhere near as numerous as the participants at AfD, and regulars tend to make up a greater proportion), this will end up as either "(speedy) keep" or "no consensus". Thryduulf (talk) 18:31, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * So in short, nothing you've said changes
 * Well clearly you have shown yourself to be concerned mostly, if not solely, with policy, not the facts; you are too concerned about being a sort of a WikiLawyer...obeying policy to the letter. Hence I have little choice but to take an abusive tone. I work very quickly on translations and disambiguations and have not the time to deal with constant, substance-less opposition from users like you and Rossami, who voted Keep on _each _ of the re-directs I nominated and declined a no-brainer CSD G6 move that he even agreed with. I don't know about you, but the latter clearly has a penchant to make the most out of every opportunity to take opposing action against me. Sure, open an ANI or WP:RFC/U case on me; I am not concerned yet. Now on to the real points.
 * You did not even consider my point about the metropolitan area, which is the most important now that I have introduced it.
 * I find the "redirects that are used are useful" to be a quagmire. There are certainly many re-directs that are used and have minor, but critical, differences with the target, i.e. Zhejiang vs. Zhenjiang
 * Well you may be right on this one, but I was only considering the search box. I conducted a quick Google search of this term, and much of the first page of results was exactly in the form of "Datang town (Chengdu Datang)", which shows some re-directs on WP can be quite influential; indeed, the first hit is the WP re-direct.
 * My metro area reasoning by itself is good enough of grounds to delete this re-direct. There is no way most people would associate Datang with Chengdu when it is 64 km away from the _airport_.
 * SO what do you mean "western user think of Chinese places as being structured the same way..." as far as I know, the Indo-European languages all "zoom out" (i.e. smallest division first) when referring to locations. "Familiar with both styles to mix them" is nothing but a fabricated excuse; if they were familiar with both the Indo-European and East Asian language styles, and they came on EN-Wiki searching in Roman script, they would use the English format.
 * Well we will see what happens with the addition of my new metro area point.
 * Nothing that I have said of old could change the outcome, at least if users like you continue to barge in. But you haven't even _bothered_ to read my metro area talking point. -- HXL's Roundtable  and  Record  19:11, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm going to refrain from commenting further to prevent provoking further incivility. Thryduulf (talk) 20:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems my outright nastiness has achieved its only purpose of deterring users who won't admit outright that they are unknowledgeable from commenting further. Not that it would necessarily increase the strength of my argument, _qualified_ participation or that it would untangle the bureaucracy of this site. Cheers. -- HXL's Roundtable  and  Record  21:11, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep again for the same reasons given in the last discussion. I have carefully read and considered all of the nominator's comments. None of the reasons given for deletion either in the first nomination nor in this renomination are convincing. Rossami (talk) 03:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I will not WP:AGF, and in fact, do the opposite: guilty until proven innocent. You can always say that you have carefully read my comments, but I doubt you ever do: 1) your regular participation in RFDs (issues of a grudge are secondary). 2) no comment on the metro area point? Casts doubt on your honesty here. You have never always won against me, and it only took a complaint of "confusing" for the reviewing admin to close the nomination of Zhejiang Railway Station. This is one of the few things that I am willing to consistently beat users over the head with until it is deleted. Don't make me start removing replies that don't respond to at least my first point. Moreover, continuing to eke out comments such as that only shows you are not willing to consider the facts that I have presented; my WikiStress may be pushed to the point that I will have no choice but to remove any such posts.
 * The issue surrounding the GFDL license is secondary to the potential confusion that this re-direct can create. This town is NOT in the metropolitan area of Chengdu, yet this re-direct implies that it is. -- HXL's Roundtable  and  Record  04:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Misleading redirect as it does suggest to unsuspecting readers it belongs to Chengdu which is the capital of the province. The preferred redirect should be Datang Town (Pujiang County) or Datang Town (Sichuan).--Visik (Chinwag Podium) 07:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, This redirect isn't "misleading" enough to be deleted. All of the "redirects from misspellings" could equally be said to be misleading, if this is considered misleading. Unlike the misleading reason to delete on WP:R, there isn't any article for this redirect to cause confusion at. Tideflat (talk) 21:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Saying "isn't misleading enough" will not help your case. You need to explain yourself. Deletion discussion are never strictly polls. Neither your (as of yet) nor Rossami's comment adds or reinforces anything to this discussion.
 * Also simply because it may not be confusing to you does not mean that will be the case for everyone else. Many Chinese would think that, given the format of this re-direct, this town is part of the Chengdu Metro Area, when it isn't. If you are confused, I will explain, but I would rather not repeat myself if you don't care about that point, as is the case with Thryduulf and Rossami.
 * Yes, my reason that this is confusing does not strictly follow the example of WP:R#DELETE No. 2, but that section never said explicitly that deletion reasons were restricted only to the list given. --– HXL's Roundtable  and  Record  00:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'

Utah State Route 173 (1935-1947)



 * 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.  Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 03:56, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * → Utah State Route 173 (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Delete because the former revision of this highway is not covered in the target article, nor is it the result of a simple legislative renumber or move, so it is irrelevant to the redirect's title. The redirect should be recreated (or given its own article) when there is relevant content for it to link to. De Fault  Ryan  05:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it should be redirected to the highway that now covers that routing. This is the precedent somewhat accepted at WP:CASR. &mdash;  P C  B  03:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'