Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 January 30

January 30
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 30, 2011

Curmudgeon



 * 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 soft redirect to Wikitonary. Thryduulf (talk) 22:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * → With the Lights Out (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Delete - implausible redirect. Slightsmile (talk) 20:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete but not because it's implausible. "Curmudgeon" is a song on the album "With the Lights Out".  I suppose a redirect would be better than yet another non-notable song article.  In this case, however, the inbound links and the common usage are to the definition of a "grumpy man" and not to this song.  (As a side note, I will start repointing the inbound links to the Wiktionary entry.)  Rossami (talk) 02:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I should have thought of the soft-redirect, too. Rossami (talk)
 * Retarget as soft redirect to Wiktionary. This is a commonly used word that someone might look up on Wikipedia. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 13:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * wi-ify per Ten Pound Hammer. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Single entry DAB with wiktionary box. Rich Farmbrough, 23:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC).

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

Cbs news on logo



 * 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 (and fix). Ruslik_ Zero 14:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * → CBS News on Logo (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Delete - useless bot-generated redirect. Really should never have been created in the first place since the target should have been moved to 365gay News a year before the redirect was generated. Now a double redirect following the article move. I Want My GayTV (talk) 05:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Fix double-redirect and keep This is a redirect from an alternative capitalisation of a long-standing article title. It's doing no harm and will continue to benefit those who look for the article at it's old title. Thryduulf (talk) 13:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Fix double-redirect and keep --Brest (talk) 14:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If entering cBS nEwS O or any other crazy-quilt mix of caps and lower-case leads to CBS News on Logo what is the point of maintaining this specific configuration? Alternate capitalizations may have made sense before auto-suggest and may possibly still make sense in cases where there are legitimate article titles that differ only in punctuation but otherwise they don't. I Want My GayTV (talk) 16:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * But actualy it is not case for this particular redirection, as you can see, people don't like to much to mix caps and lower-case.--Brest (talk) 17:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The idea of bot-generated redirects seems to me to be a truly awful idea.  But this one is a reasonable capitalization variant, one of the leading uses for redirects.  To I Want My's question above, yes the embedded search engine is case insensitive.  But redirects do far more than merely support the search engine.  Many other forms of navigation to articles are case-sensitive.  We should not assume that just because we use the search engine that other readers all do the same.  Rossami (talk) 20:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

13 Април



 * 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 all. English Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Ruslik_ Zero 19:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Redirects from Macedonian language titles for topics that have nothing to do with Macedonia, all created by User:Brest. I've omitted from this list the 21 articles created in the same run that at first glance have some vague possibility of having something to do with Macedonia (region). Anomie⚔ 04:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC) Also, why Сибир? Сиби́рь or Сибирь I could understand, as that's the name in Russian (according to ru:Сибирь). Anomie⚔ 12:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * → April 13 (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 *  → April 1 (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 *  → April 25 (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 *  → April 2 (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 *  → A Baña (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 *  → A (Cyrillic) (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 *  → April (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 *  → And Now for Something Completely Different (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 *  → Africa (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 *  → A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 *  → Barack Obama (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 *  → Berlin (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 *  → Bill Clinton (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * <span id="Биологија"> → Biology (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * <span id="Вeнсaнска шума"> → Bois de Vincennes (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * <span id="В за вендета (филм)"> → V for Vendetta (film) (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * <span id="В (Кирилица)"> → Ve (Cyrillic) (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * <span id="Германија"> → Germany (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * <span id="Германци"> → Germans (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * <span id="Жил Мазарин"> → Cardinal Mazarin (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * <span id="Загреб"> → Zagreb (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * <span id="Загребска катедрала"> → Zagreb Cathedral (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * <span id="Загрепска жупанија"> → Zagreb County (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * <span id="Задар"> → Zadar (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * <span id="Заедница на независни држави"> → Commonwealth of Independent States (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * <span id="Заедничка негација"> → Logical NOR (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * <span id="Заедничка Ризница"> → Wikimedia Commons (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * <span id="Закарпатска област"> → Zakarpattia Oblast (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * <span id="Закатала (округ)"> → Zaqatala Rayon (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * <span id="Заклетвата на Хорациите"> → Oath of the Horatii (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * <span id="Закон за авторското право на САД"> → United States copyright law (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * <span id="Закон за дејство на масата"> → Law of mass action (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * <span id="Закон за зачувување на енергијата"> → Conservation of energy (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * <span id="Закон за зачувување на масата"> → Conservation of mass (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * <span id="Законодавна власт"> → Legislature (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * <span id="Исус Христос"> → Jesus (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * <span id="Јаболко"> → Apple (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * <span id="Јапонија"> → Japan (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * <span id="Никола Саркози"> → Nicolas Sarkozy (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * <span id="Ноќ"> → Night (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * <span id="Око"> → Eye (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * <span id="Петок"> → Friday (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * <span id="Праска"> → Peach (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * <span id="Рака"> → Arm (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * <span id="Сибир"> → Siberia (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * <span id="Сметачка машина"> → Computer (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * <span id="Срце"> → Heart (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * <span id="Теорија на релативитет"> → Theory of relativity (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * <span id="Ќустендил"> → Kyustendil (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * <span id="Шарл Монтескје"> → Montesquieu (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * Delete almost all except В (Кирилица), which would be the letter in one of the languages that uses it, unless I'm mistaken. 65.93.15.80 (talk) 05:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Why not also keep А (Кирилица) then? OTOH, if someone were trying to look up those letters wouldn't they just go to А or В instead? Why would they also type "Cyrillic" in Cyrillic on the English Wikipedia? Anomie⚔ 05:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In the search box, when AJAX is enabled, it may be usefull. Also in search results it is more descriptive. For the same reason we have redirection from А to А (Cyrillic). --Brest (talk) 13:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * We have the redirect А → А (Cyrillic) because of WP:UE, not for any of the (IMO unconvincing) reasons you give. Anomie⚔ 14:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I missed that one, so yes, that one should also be kept. Everything else can go. 65.93.15.80 (talk) 05:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete asap Let think about this for a moment: The English language Wikipedia currently has roughly 3.5 million articles. There are 267 language in the world with more than a million speakers. If create redirects for every single article name in every single language with more than 1 million speakers we'll have close to 1 billion redirects. Even if redirects are cheap, a billion do use considerable webspace and resources. And of course then we need to create redirects on de.wikipeda, fr.wikipeda, es.wikipedia ...... Travelbird (talk) 11:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This is worst case scenario. And it will not happen soon.--Brest (talk) 13:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. I created these redirects just for testing purposes, and I am glad to see this discussion. As you know, here at en.wiki we already have such redirects, and not only for Cyrillic or only for Macedonian. I have an idea to create such redirects with bot, see Bots/Requests for approval/brest-bot. I think that the resources is important but not the most important issue. I think that specific language redirects should not be related only to topics with country where that language is predominantly spoken, or related only to topics for that particular language. These redirects will be useful for Macedonian speaking users, to easily find right information.--Brest (talk) 12:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Macedonian-speaking users should be using the Macedonian-language Wikipedia. Anomie⚔ 14:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Why not to use English-language Wikipedia, also? Indeed, in practice they use English-language wikipedia and these redirects will help them in using. Do you think that some-language-speaking users should be using only-their-language Wikipedia?--Brest (talk) 15:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If they don't speak English, these redirects won't help. If they do speak English, they should look up terms in the Macedonian-language Wikipedia and use interwiki links when necessary or they should look up the articles here in English. Either way, there is no need for us to have redirects from every language for every article. For terms directly related to the language a case could be made that they actually are useful, but those should be decided on a case by case basis. Anomie⚔ 16:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * First you say that redirects should be deleted because have nothing to do with specific country or something with specific region, now I hope you don't think so. If someone do not speak English at reasonable level, really do not have to use English-language Wikipedia. But if someone don't speak English as native language but have reasonable understanding of English, and his native language is for example Russian or Macedonian, you think that they don't need to use English-language Wikipedia, but their native-language Wikipedia? What will happen for articles still not written in his-native-language Wikipedia, do you think that redirects will not help them? If there is policy here to be decided on a case by case basis for every redirection, then I will agree with you that all of these redirects should be deleted, and we don't need to discus any more.--Brest (talk) 17:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As I said, I think they can either look it up in their native-language Wikipedia and use interwiki links to find the English article, or they can look it up here using English. Redirects for every article for every foreign language are unnecessary clutter. The exception is for cases where a foreign language is the language of origin, for example a video game developed in Japan may (if consensus finds it reasonable) have a redirect from the title in Japanese, but not the title in French, German, Macedonian, and so on. Anomie⚔ 19:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I respect your opinion. I have my own and disagree with you. Thank you. --Brest (talk) 19:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep all unless there is demonstrated potential for confusion or error (and so far, none has been suggested). I find Anomie's comment that "Macedonian-speaking users should be using the Macedonian-language Wikipedia" to be offensively short-sighted.  I think that he/she would be equally offended if, when attempting to edit there, a Macedonian editor were equally dismissive.  We are trying to write an encyclopedia and help as many of our readers as possible.  Some of those readers are multi-lingual and want to contribute to the English Wikipedia (which is still the largest and most filled-out).  We should be welcoming their good-faith contributions, not dismissing them out of hand.  If a foreign language redirect helps such a reader to find a particular article, more power to them.  I also note that proposals to ban foreign language redirects have been made several times and have consistently failed.  While not every page should have a redirect in every possible language, the ones created above do not create confusion and are not more burdensome or costly than a redirect for a spelling variant.  Redirects really are that cheap.  Rossami (talk) 20:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstood me then. If I were to try editing the Macedonian Wikipedia, I wouldn't try to create English content there, I would try to create content in Macedonian (and since I would fail miserably, I wouldn't actually try unless I were correcting a number or something that requires no more knowledge of the language than Google Translate can give me) . As for your comment that "While not every page should have a redirect in every possible language, the ones created above do not create confusion and are not more burdensome or costly than a redirect for a spelling variant", why then should we keep Ноќ and not also create 밤 (시간), ᏒᏃᏱ, இரவு, กลางคืน, Aruma, Đêm, Gab-í, Gau, Gecə, Guddi, Malam, Nacht, Nag, Naktės, Naktis, Nakts, Nat, Natt, Nicht, Nit, Noapte, Noc, Noć, Noč, Noche, Noite, Nokto, Nos, Note, Notte, Notti, Nox, Noz, Nuèit, Nuit, Nwit, Nyit, Oíche, Öö, Peuting, Puengi, Tuta, Yö, Yohualli, شب, ليل, לילה, נאכט, Ве, Ніч, Ноћ, Ночь, Нощ, बहनि, रात, राती, రాత్రి, രാത്രി, 夜, 夜晚, and 晚上 as additional redirects to Night, and the same for other articles on basic topics? Anomie⚔ 21:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course you would be creating content in Macedonian - and the Macedonian editors here are trying to create content in English. Redirects, however, are not content.  They are navigational aids.  And if they help even one reader without causing any confusion or harm for anyone else, then why should we want to delete them?  Note also that a number of your examples are blue and have existed peacefully in the English Wikipedia for some time (though some, like Nox and Guddi are false positives).  Rossami (talk) 03:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The only non-false-positive is Nacht, and I don't buy your claim that redirects are not "content" and so can be created arbitrarily. Anomie⚔ 04:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect pages are not content pages, they just redirect to content pages. The content page contain contents, and it should be always in English in English-language Wikipedia, in Other-language in Other-language Wikipedia. In this case the title of redirection pages is written with Cyrillic script which is different from host script and don't causing any confusion. --Brest (talk) 10:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm.. User:This, that's argument below about maintenance is compelling.  I still think a case can be made in defense of multilingual redirects and oppose a blanket policy against them but my support for this specific set is weaker than it was originally.  Rossami (talk) 16:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Definitely Keep these three: Delete. Nevermind, probably not that useful. May as well just get rid of 'em all. -- &oelig; &trade; 04:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Исус Христос → Jesus
 * Око → Eye
 * Сибир → Siberia .. No comment on the rest. -- &oelig; &trade; 08:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Can we made general conclusion from this set of redirections: Any redirection from Macedonian term that redirect to an article that treat same issue as Macedonian article is allowed. Because it give more power to Macedonian speaking users to find right target article in English wikipedia.--Brest (talk) 11:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Why? Why not also create 눈 (해부학), ตา, ܥܝܢܐ (ܨܪܘܝܘܬܐ), አይን (ሥነ አካል), མིག, Aag, Acs, Akės, Akis, Ányá, A (Sënnesorgan), Auga, Auge, Ba̍k-chiu, Begi, Bët, Čalbmi, Çav, Çım, Each, Ēage, Ee, Göz, Güeyu, ᐃᔨ/iji, Īxtelolohtli, Je, Jicho, kanla, Lagad, Lǐso, Llygad, Mắt, Matá, Mĕ̤k-ciŭ, Ñawi, Nayra, Ngién, Occhio, Occhiu, Ochi, Ocio, Oculo, Œil, Øje, Ojo, Ojú, Oko, Okulo, Olho, Ollo, Oog, Oog (anatomie), Oohr, Øye, Panon, Silm, Silmä, Ślypje, Syri, Szem, Tesa, Uèlh, Uello, Ull, Wóčko, Yi, اکھ, آنکھ, چشم, سترګه, عين, كۆز, אויג, עין, Μάτι, Вока, Глаз, Көз, Куç, Нүд, Нүдн, Цæст, თვალი (მხედველობის ორგანო), आँख, आँखा, डोळा, नेत्रम्, આંખ, ਅੱਖ, കണ്ണ്, চোখ, ඇස, 目, 眼, and 眼睛 as redirects to Eye; 예수, ܝܫܘܥ, ኢየሱስ, இயேசு கிறித்து, ཡེ་ཤུ།, 𐌹𐌴𐍃𐌿𐍃 𐍇𐍂𐌹𐍃𐍄𐌿𐍃, އީސާގެފާނު, พระเยซู, イエス・キリスト, Bukhristu, Chesús de Nazaret, Ciise, Doodaatsaahii (Jíísas), Ɛisa, Ğaysa, Gesù, Ġesù, Gesü, Gesû Cristo, Gesù Cristu, Gesü de Nazaret, Gesù ëd Nàsaret, Gesùs, Giê-su, Hesukristo, Hesus, Iâ-so͘, Ià-sŭ, Iesu Keriso, Iesu Mesia, Ihu Karaiti, Ìosa Chrìosd, Íosa Críost, Îsa, İsa, Isa Almasihu, İsa peyğəmbər, Isa Pygamber, Iso Masih, Isus din Nazaret, Jasus, Jesoa, Jésù, Jesucristu, Jèsus, Jesús, Jesus Christo, Jésus-Chrît, Jesus da Nazaret, Jesús de Natzaret, Jesús de Nazaret, Jésus de Nazareth, Jesus Kristus, Jesus Nazaretekoa, Jesus van Nasaret, Jesus von Nazaret, Jesus vun Nazaret, Jezi, Ježiš Kristus, Ježíš Kristus, Jézus, Jezus Christus, Jezus Chrystus, Jezusi, Jezus Kristus, Jėzus Kristus, Jēzus Kristus, Jezus (traditioneel-christelijk), Jezus van Nazareth, Jezuz Nazaret, Jiezos Krėstos, Jiisusi-Kristus, Jisas, Jisas Kraes, Jisọs Kraịst, Jisu Karisito, ᐱᐅᓕᑦᓯᔨ/piulitsiji, Sīsū Kalaisi, UYesu Kristu, Xesús, Xesús de Nazareth, Yâ-sû, Yéesu-kristaa, Yeesus Grischdus, Yeshua Christós, Yesu Khristu, Yesu Krist, Yesu Krista, Yesu Kristo, Yesu Kristu, Yesus Kristus, Yezu Kirisitu, Zjezus Christus, یسوع, عیسی, عیسیٰ علیہ السلام, عيسی, ئەيسا مەسىھ, יעזוס, ישו, Ιησούς Χριστός, Ғайса, Есүс Христ, Иесуа Қьырста, Иисус Христос, Иса Мәсіх, Исо, Исус, Исус Кристос, Ісус Христос, Ісус Хрыстос, Їисъ Хрїстъ, Йесо Чырысти, Эса идавс, Հիսուս, იესო ქრისტე, ईसा मसीह, येशू ख्रिस्त, యేసు, ਈਸਾ ਮਸੀਹ, ಯೇಸು ಕ್ರಿಸ್ತ, യേശു, যিশু, ခရစ်တော်၊ ယေရှု, නාසරෙත් හි යේසුස්, 耶稣, and 耶穌 as redirects to Jesus; and the like for every other basic topic?
 * I didn't see any obstacles why not? except litlle more work and absence of good faith.--Brest (talk) 12:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, I wouldn't have a problem with someone creating all those redirects you mention above. -- &oelig; &trade; 00:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete all. We don't need redirects from translations. The argument that it can useful (easier to find information) for foreign speaking users is redundant to interwiki system. We don't need to duplicate that functionality with redirects. We would also then need to include most if not all variants for all the various languages – the counter-argument that has not been addressed. Having just Macedonian redirects is unusually biased. Any foreign term can be found via search engines on the correct language Wikipedia and redirects aren't indexed anyway. Foreign language content is not appropriate for English Wikipedia, just as English content would not be appropriate for any other foreign Wikipedia. Again, there are interwikis and dozens of bots maintaining them for this exact purpose. Translations help navigation just as much as misspelled terms, or slang words and we are not creating those en masse. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no duplicate of functionality. We have two different complementary functionalities: interwiki links and redirects. With interwiki we have capability to switch between different language editions of wikipedia. With redirects we have capability to navigate inside one language edition of wikipedia.--Brest (talk) 18:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This is English Wikipedia for English language. Unless commonly used or notable, foreign translations and expressions are only useful for those not knowing English. But Wikipedia is not a dictionary. And if one knows the foreign term, then they can look it up on the native Wikipedia and navigate via interwikis from there. Also any search engine will find any term to the correct language Wikipedia(s). To me, the purpose of both interwikis and translation redirects is the same -- to navigate from foreign terms. Every foreign article with interwiki will also have a local redirect to the same page. Except, interwiki system is well-maintained and global across all Wikis with bots updating entries all the time. Whereas translation redirects add different problems. Where will you redirect Russian "лук" -- bow or onion? Or are we going to have translation redirect disambiguations too? Dozens of bots maintain interwikis of 3.5 million pages, how will we efficiently maintain 3.5M times number of languages pages? Who will create them all in the first place? As pointed below -- hard to catch vandalism. If I am to maintain the pages, how will I know which term means what if I don't speak the language, and there aren't this many active bilingual editors who would work on this area. If I was to check the validity of redirects via interwikis, then this leads me back to the redundancy. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * For this foreign/non-English term - Четврта интернационала, there is no article in Macedonian Wikipedia (my native wiki). So I can't use interwiki. If I have redirection Четврта интернационала to Fourth International here in English Wikipedia, it will bring me directly to my target. And this is just one example of many. Not every language edition of Wikipedia has a full set of articles as biggesttt wikipedias and for those wikipedias interwikis can't help. For other arguments in you comment: Are you think that wikipedia is good project just because you easily catch vandalism or because of good faith editors? --Brest (talk) 22:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Your time would be better spent on translating the article for the Macedonian Wikipedia than on creating redirects that few people are ever going to use. Anomie⚔ 23:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It is just your advise, I respect it. I don't like to give you my advise. I have my own agenda and usually I don't spent my time on translations. As I see, I will not spent my time on redirects also :).--Brest (talk) 23:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete all. My problem with these is that, since very few people on enwiki read Cyrillic or speak Slavic languages, it is extremely easy for malicious or false redirects to be introduced using this foreign alphabet and language. Anyone who is quickly scanning a list of redirects will see, for instance, "Joe is gay" -> "Joe Bloggs" or "Fizbucket boo" -> "Wikipedia", but not "Джо является геем" -> "Joe Bloggs" or "Свеча аромат мыла" -> "Wikipedia" or something else irrelevant. Because we don't have the resources here on enwiki to adequately sort out these foreign redirects, they should be discouraged and, in this case, deleted. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "Свеча аромат мыла" I laughed out loud :) — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you think that wikipedia is good project just because you easily catch vandalism or because of good faith editors? --Brest (talk) 22:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete all as 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) 19:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * From the pointed discusions I see that this case is not the first one. And we should revise our positions for this issue.--Brest (talk) 22:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete all — including В (Кирилица), Исус Христос, Око, and Сибир, for reasons well-argued by Travelbird, Anomie, Hellknowz, and Black Falcon. —Anomalocaris (talk) 20:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There are already redirects for the plausible А to A (Cyrillic) and В to Ve (Cyrillic), so there is no need for the implausible А (Кирилица) and В (Кирилица). By analogy, there are articles in both English and French Wikipedia on the letter E with an acute accent, É and É respectively. In English Wikipedia, there is a redirect E acute and in French, there is a redirect E accent aigu, but E accent aigu is not, and should not be, a redirect in English Wikipedia, because anyone looking for an article in French would search French Wikipedia for É or E accent aigu, and anyone looking for an article in English would search English Wikipedia for É or E acute. —Anomalocaris (talk) 21:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete all. My gosh, is it possible that there is still debate about foreign redirects? We've been through this before. Random foreign redirects are ridiculous. Something that was originally in another language, like Les Trois Mousquetaires or 北京, are acceptable. But like I've said, we don't need redirects like voiture→car; this is not a translation site, and I would really like to see a policy outlining this exactly as I've stated here. &mdash; Timneu22 &middot; &#32; talk 21:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete most, if not all, per Anomie. These have no benefit for English readers, and I have not seen any convincing argument that they would help readers from other languages navigate the English Wikipedia. older ≠ wiser 21:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete most I'm usually all for keeping any remotely helpful redirect, but these are mostly of very questionable utility. Especially ones like "April 13." I agree the use of interwiki links is a far more sensible way to help readers cross-navigate these topics between different projects, and keeping these would set a bad precedent that any word in any language can be redirected to the en.WP article on it. This is essentially shoe-horning a translation tool onto Wikipedia. Not only do we have the Macedonian Wikipedia, there are external sites such as Google Translate that can provide translation of basic words and phrases. If the topic has a clear connection to Macedonia in particular or is a loanword from Macedonian, keep, otherwise delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note that this RFD contains only the ones that have no obvious connection to Macedonia (region); the ones that have even the most tenuous connection are currently listed here, in case anyone wants to review them. Anomie⚔ 23:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Semi-arbitrary break
I've suggested at the bot request page linked above and at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion that there are only two cases where bots should create foreign-language redirects - (1) for the official name(s) of settlements/geographical entities in the official language(s) spoken in that place, iff those names are included in the first paragraph of the target article (eg. دار السلام to Dar es Salaam). 2) For the name(s) of people in the language(s) they speak, iff those names are included in the first paragraph of the target article (e.g. Мария Шарапова to Maria Sharapova). Anything else can be created manually of course. Given that there are at least three concurrent discussions about foreign redirects at the moment, perhaps we should have an RfC or other centralised discussion? Thryduulf (talk) 13:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC) The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
 * Keep As long as we don't allow bot creation of redirects, redirects are useful to someone or they wouldn't have been created. Redirects are cheap and if we allow "foreign" as a deletion criteria how do we protect the really important redirects such as Wien?  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  10:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * These were not created for being useful, rather to create examples (quoting Brest "I created these redirects just for testing purposes"). See also Bots/Requests for approval/brest-bot. Terms like Wien are safe, because they are not just foreign translations but also notable variations likely to be searched for. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * They are created just for testing purposes, but it dosn't mean they are not useful.--Brest (talk) 14:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * We can protect "really important" foreign-language redirects with a simple rule that the foreign language must have a connection to the topic (the necessary strength of that connection would need to be discussed elsewhere); this has already been suggested several times above. So Wien would be ok since German is the official language of Austria, and a case could be made for Dunaj, Beč, and Bécs because those are "recognized regional languages" in Austria (although "which region?" could be asked), but 維也納, ویانا, or Виена (for example) would not be needed as there is no connection with Chinese, Urdu, Macedonian, or Bulgarian. Anomie⚔ 12:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Your simple rule is unusable and is not universal. What about Frédéric Chopin? You say it is usable to have redirects like Fryderyk Chopin because he has some connection with Poland, but it is not usable to have redirects like Фредерик Шопен, 弗雷德里克·肖邦, just because he was not Macedonian, Bulgarian, Chinese or Mongolian? But Chopin belongs to all and he is important to all of us.--Brest (talk) 14:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Really important is a much higher bar than useful. As redirects are cheap I would suggest that "really important" is too high a test. I prefer the test of "sufficiently useful that someone has bothered to manually create them". Working out why someone finds each individual redirect useful is probably too complex to be worthwhile doing.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  14:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that "sufficiently useful that someone has bothered to manually create them" seems like a very sensible starting point, and in most cases sufficient to keep them. However I don't think it passes muster as a reason to keep every such redirect. I'm thinking of cases where the foreign language term is not a very good match for the concept the article is about, but where there is nothing better to retarget to. Unless the term is encyclopaedically notable, explaining the nuances of foreign language terms/concepts is a job that Wiktionary does much better than we can here. Thryduulf (talk) 15:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * IMO, "someone manually created the redirect" is far too low of a bar. For one, there are reasons for someone to create a redirect other than that they find it sufficiently useful. For example, they could mistakenly believe others would find it sufficiently useful (this resembles the Abilene paradox), they could believe that the redirect "should" exist even if not useful, they could be suffering from editcountitis, or they could be falsely claiming that they find these redirects useful to prove a point. And even if they are completely sincere, there is still the question of whether the fact that one single person (or even a small group of people) finds a redirect useful is really sufficient reason to keep that redirect. Anomie⚔ 17:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've no objection to judicious pruning or amendment of redirects that have been specifically identified as incorrect or inappropriate, I just think that "sufficiently useful that someone has bothered to manually create them" should be the default position. But to pick up on Anomie's point about editcountitis, I've no objection to throttling their creation - if someone is creating redirects in a bot like manner I would question whether they have considered each individually and deemed them useful.  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  17:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If we assume that, ירושלים to Jerusalem and חיפה to Haifa, are useful manually created redirections, because is related to Israel according to Anomie, then also we can assume that any other apropriate redirection for city in Category:Cities in Israel is useful. For users there is no difference between manualy created and bot created redirection. Some one believe that the redirect "should not" exist even is useful, if redirect from foreign language and is not manually created, first simptom of Adminitis. --Brest (talk) 23:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Sonalee Kulkarni
<div class="boilerplate mfd" style="background:#FFEEDD; margin-top:0.5em; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #888888;">


 * 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 Redirect turned into article. All done. Non-admin closure. — This, that, and the other (talk)  00:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * → Sonali Kulkarni (links to redirect • [ history] • )

See discussion at Talk:Natarang  S Pat   talk 04:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

There is confusion due to two actresses with the same name. The redirect should be replaced with User:SPat/Sonalee Kulkarni. S Pat  talk 05:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment If I understand you correctly you want to create and article on a person called "Sonalee Kulkarni". In that case I'll just be WP:BOLD and make the redirect a page. You can then just copy your text into Sonalee Kulkarni. Travelbird (talk) 11:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Copy pasted content to Sonalee Kulkarni. Thanks for the comment.  S Pat   talk 11:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

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

METAL DISINTEGRATION
<div class="boilerplate mfd" style="background:#FFEEDD; margin-top:0.5em; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #888888;">


 * 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 repointed to harmonize with the non-all-caps version. SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * → Electrical discharge machining (links to redirect • [ history] • )

IT'S IN ALL CAPS so it doesn't follow proper naming convention. Further, nothing links here. If such a redirect really needs to exist, it should exist in the proper capitalization. &mdash; Timneu22 &middot; &#32; talk 03:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC) Delete. I think it is best to stop hoarding garbage. Ruslik_ Zero 14:35, 12 February 2011 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep to preserve attribution. If you look at the redirect's history then you'll see the edit summary clearly stating that content is being merged. In these circumstances we don't delete the redriect so the edit history is preserved. It should be tagged as an unprintworthy redirect (as it is) which will exclude it from the search dropdown. Thryduulf (talk) 13:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Makes no sense. IT IS IN ALL CAPS. Move this to the correct capitalization and then delete this. &mdash; Timneu22 &middot; &#32; talk 19:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I just moved it to the correct caps. It's now a double redirect so it will be fixed soon. &mdash; Timneu22 &middot; &#32; talk 19:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep to preserve attribution history (now at both capitalizations). The existence of a redirect is not an endorsement of a title and a redirect is not required to comply with the naming conventions normal to an article.  This one is doing no harm and creating no evident confusion.  It should, perhaps, be tagged with unprintworthy, though.  Rossami (talk) 20:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no history to preserve! http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=METAL_DISINTEGRATION&action=history. Please, let's use some common sense here. We just do not need an all-caps redirect for no reason. &mdash; Timneu22 &middot; &#32; talk 22:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Pagemoves count as history. The fact that the history is copied somewhere else mitigates but does not eliminate the value of leaving the redirect behind.  Please assume good faith that the rest of us both understand common sense and understand the value of history and the multiple purposes of redirects.  Please take a moment to read Redirects are cheap and Redirects for discussion.  Being "unneeded" is not a reason to delete a redirect.  Rossami (talk) 03:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I do know, and I know when "unneeded" is a reason to delete, and that is now. Shall I go create lots of caps redirects like BABE RUTH and CHICAGO, ILLINOIS and MACROECONOMICS? &mdash; Timneu22 &middot; &#32; talk 10:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Unneeded is never a reason to delete all by itself. That does not mean that we should preemptively create new redirects (which is what you are now saying) but it does mean that once created in good faith, the right answer is to leave non-harmful redirects alone.  Rossami (talk) 14:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There is already a valid redirect that is properly named. I find this discussion unbelievable. Frankly the redirect could be deletable under r3. &mdash; Timneu22 &middot; &#32; talk 14:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Further, the redirect, which was once an article, was indeed created in good faith, but that's not enough: it was created incorrectly, and it has now been fixed. So why have two redirects? Just because a good-faith A7 article was created doesn't mean that CSD shouldn't be used. Good faith doesn't overrule common sense or naming convention guidelines. &mdash; Timneu22 &middot; &#32; talk 14:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete now that the attribution problem is fixed. With the exception of the ALL CAPS article and a few others (i.e. LASER redirecting to laser, because laser is an acronym), ALL CAPS REDIRECTS are not particularly helpful; if anything, they're distracting when they show up in the search box while typing.  The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 16:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As has already been mentioned upthread, it is possible to remove these redirects from the search box drop-down list. I would support doing this by default for redirects from alternative spellings (although there are obviously cases where they probably should be seen), if only to stop this reason being given n support of deletion of redirects. The search box is not the only way that people navigate Wikipedia and alternative capitalisation redirects benefit those people who use case sensitive searching methods. Thryduulf (talk) 23:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * But why keep two redirects when one of them is absolutely unneeded? There's just no justification for keeping the all-caps redirect. &mdash; Timneu22 &middot; &#32; talk 11:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What is the justification for deleting something contains attribution history, is potentially useful for some users who use case sensitive searches and does no harm? I repeat "unnecessary" is not a reason to delete a redirect. Thryduulf (talk)
 * You're just wrong: it has no history, and it is not potentially useful. The correct capitalization redirect has the history and is useful. Again, why not create these meaningless redirects, too: BABE RUTH and CHICAGO, ILLINOIS and MACROECONOMICS. &mdash; Timneu22 &middot; &#32; talk 20:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * A record of a page move is useful history (as has been explained above). Similarly I've explained previously how this is useful for people who search/browse using case sensitive methods and for people who have linked to it externally. Rossami explained upthread that just because we should keep this doesn't mean we should preemptively create similar ones. As your response to these reasoned arguments is "you're just wrong", I don't know how to respond further other than to point you back to those arguments and point out once more that neither being "unnecessary" nor proclaiming those on the other side of a debate are "just wrong" are reasons to delete a redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 21:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This debate is so ridiculous that why "just wrong" is the most I can do. Holy shit. Any "keep" arguments for this seem absolutely unreasonable and I've seen no sane arguments in favor of it. The redirect: 1) is a double redirect 2) would never be accessed in a search or otherwisie 3) does not have history associated with it. So why are you keeping it? &mdash; Timneu22 &middot; &#32; talk 14:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) It should obviously be retargetted, but that does not require deletion. 2) It probably wont get accidentally linked to internally on Wikipedia, but that does not mean it will never be linked to from external sites, found in search results (internal or external to the English Wikipedia) - there are many different ways that people find and access Wikipedia content, some are case insensitive some are case sensitive. ("Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do."), 3) It does have history associated with it - it has the history of the page move, which is more significant than some textual changes to articles. The keep arguments are "1. It's useful", "2. It's doing no harm" and "3. It's preserving attribution history". The onus though is on those wanting to delete a redirect to show why deleting it will improve the encyclopaedia. I think we're just going to have to see whether the closing administrator finds these arguments more or less convincing that "I don't like it", "The existence of another redirect makes this one unnecessary" and "You're just wrong". Thryduulf (talk) 15:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. No use having these all-caps redirects floating around. They're not needed, as others have stated above. — This, that, and the other (talk) 00:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And as also been said, there is a use in having this redirect and "not needed" is not a reason to delete a redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 03:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I've retargeted it to Electrical discharge machining which seams a reasonable target as Metal disintegration also redirects there to. Aaabbccz   Talk   Contribs  21:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)