Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 January 16

January 16
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 16, 2011

NEVER GONNA GIVE YOU UP



 * 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. Ruslik_ Zero 19:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * → Never Gonna Give You Up (links to redirect • [ history] • )

MY CAPS LOCK KEY IS LOUD. Seriously, is anyone gonna type the title in ALL CAPS? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC) Comment: It helps me. I type "http://enwp.org/Foo" to get to articles. That is case sensitive and redirects are handy. -- N Y  Kevin  @723, i.e. 16:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Comment Other capitalisations are normally kept to aid linking, but all caps is less likely than variations in sentence case/title case (e.g. Never gonna give you up is a very useful redirect). This has been around since 2008, and so it's quite possible that it's being linked to from off-wiki, but as stats.grok.se is case insensitive we have no way of knowing how many people use it. I honestly don't know whether I think the advantages of deleting it outweigh the disadvantages of deleting and the advantages of keeping. Thryduulf (talk) 00:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This redirect was created in 2008 by a relatively new editor who was a little single-focused at the time. (He has since become a very good editor from what I can see.)  It has created no confusion since then and deleting it does not substantively improve the encyclopedia.  (It is already tagged as unprintworthy.  Keep because no reason for deletion has been given.  Rossami (talk) 22:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * All caps redirects to correct capitalization should be routinely deleted unless there is some good reason to keep them. As the user types a search string, Wikipedia automatically lists articles consistent with what the user has typed. There is no reason that this list should include an erroneous all-caps spelling, which is just more visual clutter for the user trying to get choose from the list. Therefore the redirect has got to go, unless there is a real reason to keep it. —Anomalocaris (talk) 04:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: From a policy perspective, you have that backwards.  We are required to assume good faith and keep our users' contributions unless there is a good reason to delete them.  Redirects do far more than merely support the internal search engine.  Note: if the prefill function is your only concern, templates such as unprintworthy can be added to suppress inclusion in the index.  In my own spot-check, that appears to be working on this page.  What visual clutter are you still seeing?  Rossami (talk) 23:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I will continue to call for deleting redirects for capitalization differences, because they have no benefit and some harm, and I further call for Wikipedia to set policy deprecating redirects for capitalization differences. How do I go about initiating a policy discussion on this topic? I gather that the inclusion of R from other capitalisation in this or any other redirect causes it to join Category: Unprintworthy redirects, but if that is supposed to affect the autocomplete dropdown, it doesn't happen for me. By the time I have entered "never gonna give" into the search box, there are five suggestions:
 * Never Gonna Give You Up
 * Never Gonna Give You Up (Mai Kuraki song)
 * NEVER GONNA GIVE YOU UP
 * Never Gonna Give You Up (disambiguation)
 * Never Gonna Give You Up (D:TNG episode)#ep10
 * The third one does not add any value and therefore subtracts value by confusing things. —Anomalocaris (talk) 06:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * While R from other capitalisation does count as a subset of Category:Unprintworthy redirects, I'm not sure if that template alone is sufficient to exclude the autocomplete. We might have to ask a developer if the flag is specific to a given template.  Alternatively, you might be seeing an artifact of our reindexing frequency and/or user cache.  Unprintworthy clearly does work in other circumstances (such as Never gonna give you up which apparently did not come up on your list.  I'm not sure why it's not yet working for you. As a side note, did you realize that your call for a policy change to purge all redirects for capitalization differences would require deletion of well over 300,000 redirects?  Even if the community decided that it was a good idea, I don't think it would be feasible.  Rossami (talk) 19:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I know this isn't the place to discuss changes in policy, but I feel it needs to be said that I would be very strongly opposing any proposal of that nature. While the search drop down (a relatively recent feature) means that alternative capitalisations are needed less for people who search that way, the very slight disbenefit this causes (and is entirely avoidable by excluding them from the search box) is massively eclipsed by the benefits it brings in the form of aiding accidental linking and to those who search using other methods. Thryduulf (talk) 20:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Please explain how a user of Wikipedia such as me can prevent alternative capitalization redirects from appearing in the search drop down, because if there's a way to make them all go away, I'll be very happy. Also, please explain what method someone might search where these links do help. For example, if I search for "Camptown races" I automatically go to the article Camptown Races. So how would a redirect of Camptown races to Camptown Races help me, given that Camptown races already goes right there automatically? And if I were editing an article and I happened to enter Camptown races I would see the red link in "Show preview" so I would know to fix it, and therefore there is no need for creating capitalization redirects in the case of accidental linking. In my opinion, whether or not all old capitalization redirects should be deleted, Wikipedia should now promote a policy against creating new ones. —Anomalocaris (talk) 01:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep This redirect (created by me) is just as useful as never gonna give you up. --Diego Grez (talk) 23:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * How so? If the redirect did not exist, and the user entered NEVER GONNA GIVE YOU UP in the search box, they would go straight to never gonna give you up. Therefore this redirect is of no use at all. Therefore it should be deleted, for reasons I explained above. —Anomalocaris (talk) 20:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Redirects from alternate capitalizations are not useful unless someone would plausibly link to it in an article. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 06:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Or use a case sensitive search method, or type it in the URL bar, or link to it externally, etc, etc. Alternative capitalisations have many more uses that just as a target for internal links. Thryduulf (talk) 10:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Case-sensitive search: The website http://case-sensitive-search.appspot.com/ provides case-sensitive filtering of Google searches. Searching for "NEVER GONNA GIVE YOU UP" (without quotes) finds, among the first 416 Google hits, 8 with that capitalization, none of which are on Wikipedia.
 * URL bar: on my computer, in both Internet Explorer 7 and Firefox 3.6, entering anything in the URL field that isn't a valid URL jumps directly to a Google search. Google search is not case sensitive, so entering "never gonna give you up" or "NEVER GONNA GIVE YOU UP" (without quotes in either case) in the URL field of either Internet Explorer 7 or Firefox 3.6 goes straight to the same Google results, for which the Wikipedia article Never Gonna Give You Up is the first hit after four video hits. In particular, since Google searches are not case-sensitive, Google does not offer the Wikipedia redirect NEVER GONNA GIVE YOU UP within the first 100 results, if at all. In fact, a Google search NEVER "GONNA GIVE YOU UP site:en.wikipedia.org" (without quotes) (which limits results to English Wikipedia pages) does not offer the Wikipedia redirect NEVER GONNA GIVE YOU UP within the first 200 results, if at all.
 * External links: The Google search "link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Never_Gonna_Give_You_Up" (without quotes) has 19 results, so Google knows of 19 pages on the Internet linking to Never Gonna Give You Up. In contrast, the Google search "link:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NEVER_GONNA_GIVE_YOU_UP" (without quotes) has zero results, and the Google search "link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NEVER_GONNA_GIVE_YOU_UP" (without quotes) has zero results. Based on these results, we don't have to worry about case-sensitive search, URL field entries, or external links. —Anomalocaris (talk) 04:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Google is not all-seeing and all-knowing (it is a useful guide, but not the answer), other web browsers are available - for example neither Links (web browser) nor the version of Internet Explorer on my phone redirect me to a search engine nor do they bring up a wikipedia page with a different capitalisation to that entered in the URL bar. These might not add up to many users, but redirects are so cheap that doesn't matter - the question is given that it is useful or potentially useful for some people (and in addition to the preceding it is well established that alternative capitalisation redirects are), how will Wikipedia benefit from deleting this redirect? Thryduulf (talk) 20:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia benefits from deleting this redirect because when someone types "never gonna give you up" (case insensitive) into the search bar, a bunch of results shows up, making it more difficult to find the result they want; removing this will clear up the list a little. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 23:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete – In my opinion, a redirect, like any non-article "support" page, should be kept if it serves a useful purpose and deleted if it does not. Without commenting much on alternative-caps redirects in general, except to note that they certainly can be useful and often are, I do not see how this particular redirect is useful. Quite simply, it is so unlikely to be used. Even in the case of a case-specific search method (e.g., typing into the address bar), I find it hard to believe that a reader or editor routinely would search in all-caps or that, as a possible extension, we should have all-caps redirects for all of our 3.5 million articles (and the 4.7 million redirects to them). -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

接触平面



 * 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. Per RFD #8 and past precedents. Ruslik_ Zero 19:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * → Osculating plane (links to redirect • [ history] • )

This is a Japanese-language redirect to an article on a mathematical topic that has no clear connection to Japan. The redirect was created as a result of another editor attempting to establish a duplicate article at this title, which could and should have been deleted under WP:CSD. I recommend deletion of the redirect. Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep - Is there a policy stating that the redirect language needs to be related to the topic of the redirect? Also, I can't find any reason to delete this under WP:R. On the contrary, I could imagine that this redirect would be potentially useful to a Japanese (Chinese?) speaker with limited understanding of English, satisfying WP:R #5.  Jujutacular  talk 00:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per reason 5 to keep redirects per Jujutacular. Thryduulf (talk) 00:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per the fact that it is plausible search term for Japanese/Chinese speakers. Cunard (talk) 01:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete non-English redirects which are not the original language title, or title for which the subject has a great connection with are commonly deleted at RfD, I don't see why this shouldn't also be thusly deleted. WP:NOTDIC - wikipedia is not a translation dictionary. 65.93.14.196 (talk) 05:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTDIC refers to articles, not redirects. 接触平面 should be kept because it is a navigational aid for those who know the topic's name in Japanese but not in English. Because it is a plausible search term, and because it is useful for non-native English speakers, it passes WP:RFD #5. I have reviewed WP:RFD and have been unable to find a condition that would mandate the deletion of this redirect. Cunard (talk) 09:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete We do not, and cannot reasonably, have redirects from every term in every foreign language to every article. Consequently a foreign language redirect should be kept only if there is some special reason for this particular one to be kept. In fact the reasons given above for keeping are not such specific ones, but only generic "could be used by a speaker of the language in question" arguments. As the nomination correctly says, this topic has no special connection with Japan or Japanese, and. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The arguments for keeping this redirect point to WP:RFD #5: Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful—this is not because the other person is a liar, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways. Japanese editors such as will find this redirect useful. Redirects are cheap, and WP:NOTPAPER is applicable here. What are the policy-based reasons for deletion? Cunard (talk) 11:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete A japanese user could type that in the Japanese wikipedia and click the translation link. Also, that title would make a japanese user think they're viewing an article in Japanese - it shouldn't redirect to English. D O N D E groovily   Talk to me  02:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If a Japanese reader does not know the English term for this topic, the redirect would serve as a useful navigational tool to find what s/he needs. Making him/her go to the Japanese Wikipedia to search for the term is unnecessary when it can be done here. As to your second point: That the redirect should be deleted because of its potential for confusion is invalid. The same could be said of all the redirects in Category:Redirects from alternative languages. Cunard (talk) 05:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Who is this mythical person who allegedly finds this redirect useful? It was created recently and in error. —Anomalocaris (talk) 04:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * , who originally created an article at this target as a copy and paste of Osculating plane, will find it useful. As an inexperienced new user, he mistakenly created an article instead of a redirect. Per WP:RFD #5, that you may not find it useful is not a valid reason for deletion. I have yet to see a policy-based reason for deleting this redirect. Cunard (talk) 05:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. The numbers speak for themselves: . And yes, it does actually accept foreign characters: . You can't take "Someone finds them useful" at face value; the creator of a redirect always finds it useful, so by that logic no redirect can ever be deleted. What that really means is "someone other than the creator"; and per stats.grok.se zero people have found it useful. Moreover, the keep !voters are asking for a specific reason, and that is #8: this is a "very obscure synonym" in the scope of an English-speaking community. If the article were Japan-related, it wouldn't be so obscure. If people actually cared enough to search for the term even occasionally, it would also be less obscure. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 08:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. WP:RFD #8 is a valid argument for deletion. This search term receives very few hits but it has received some. It was accessed once in September 2009, once in April 2010, once in May 2010, once in July 2010, and once in August 2010. 中国 being viewed thousands of times over three years makes it an obviously useful search term. That 接触平面 was viewed by four readers over three years (as well as 接触平面's creation by a fifth reader) makes it a valid, useful redirect, in my opinion. Though the numbers are low, I believe that this redirect's existence will guide another five people to find what they want over the course of the next three years. Does this justify a redirect? Maybe, maybe not. I understand that we have different opinions about this and respect your decision to support deletion. Cunard (talk) 09:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete RFD#8. I'm okay with foreign synonyms such as 東京 for Tokyo. However, common non-native and non-cultural based terms like this is a little off. -- Lenticel ( talk ) 01:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, the only reason that we should keep typical foreign-language redirects is if they're the names of those topics in the local language (e.g. 東京 for Tokyo), but since osculating planes aren't specifically Japanese, there's no more reason to have this than there is to have the Ovambo name for it as a redirect, and we don't need redirects to this title from every language in the world. Nyttend (talk) 03:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep and tag with R from alternative language. No one has yet presented any evidence that this redirect is incorrect, harmful or confusing.  It was created in good faith and is potentially helpful to some readers.  Note: We have at rough count some 12,000 redirects from foreign languages and a long-established category to help organize them.  The arguments asserting that the English Wikipedia does not allow such redirects are demonstrably untrue.  Proposals to make that the policy have failed.  Nor does RFD#8 apply in my opinion.  Foreign language equivalents may arguably be considered synonyms but they are in no way obscure.  Note 2:  I am not advocating that we preemptively create such redirects - merely that once created in good faith, they should be kept.  Redirects are that cheap.  Rossami (talk) 07:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not disputed that the English Wikipedia should not have foreign language redirects; the issue is with foreign language redirects that are unrelated to the subject. As you can see from Category:Redirects from Japanese-language terms, pretty much all of them have to do with to Japanese culture in some way. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 13:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete For the reasons mentioned above and those mentioned at Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 January 30 (which has 50 more redirects in this same situation). Anomie⚔ 22:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as a non-English redirects where there is no connection between the topic of the target article and the language of the redirect. For example, while München is a valid, useful, and necessary redirect to Munich, Hukum pertama termodinamika (Indonesian) is not a needed redirect to First law of thermodynamics. Previous discussions involving alternative-language redirects have almost always been decided on this basis: see e.g., 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11. See also Wikipedia talk:Redirect/Archive 5. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Infinite Dimensional vectors



 * 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 Close—retargeted. Ruslik_ Zero 19:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * → Lapierre-Roy vectors (links to redirect • [ history] • ) — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 06:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete. Although created by a move (or cut/paste move), it's misleading, even if the target were to survive Prod.  Perhaps sequence space might be an appropriate target, but it seems unlikely.  Infinite-dimensional vector space would be a better source for sequence space.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 06:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Retarget to the same target as Infinite-dimensional vector space (currently Vector space, but I'm not sure from the nomination statement if Arthur Rubin is suggesting changing this or not). "Infinite dimensional vectors" (in any capitalisation) seems to me to be a very likely search term for "Infinite-dimensional vector space" (not that I claim any understand of this subject at all), and so if the latter is deemed a useful search term to have (and with 40-60 hits/month it looks like it is) then I don't see why we should delete this similar one. Thryduulf (talk) 00:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete A very misleading redirect to an article on a topic which is much more limited than the title of the redirect page. The target article is, in fact a spam article currently proposed for deletion. Redirecting to Vector space seems of limited value, as the latter is not specifically about infinite-dimensional spaces. If it is to be redirected then Sequence space would be more appropriate, as it is genuinely about infinite-dimensional spaces, unlike Vector space. Neither of them, however, covers quite the same ground as "Infinite Dimensional vectors", so I prefer deletion. If it is to be redirected to anywhere then it would be better deleted and then recreated as a new redirect, so as to remove the spam article from the editing history. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: This redirected to a now deleted page. I've redirected it to vector space, the same page that infinite-dimensional vector space redirects to.  It looked as if the author of the article was redoing, not very well, work done by David Hilbert a century or more ago.  If he had inquired at Wikipedia's mathematics reference desk, he would have found that his original research was not that original. Michael Hardy (talk) 15:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, now I've deleted it to get rid of the history, and then redirected as above. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)