Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 March 22

March 22
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 22, 2011

Verenigde State van Amerika



 * 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.  TexasAndroid (talk) 15:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * → United States (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * → United States (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Inappropriate for the English Wikipedia. I don't understand why terms should be in other languages if this isn't a related language. Magioladitis (talk) 16:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * keep, it's doing no harm and is used, getting typically 15-30 hits per month, although with the occasional spike (e.g. 28 on one day in September 2010). How would deleting the redirect help the encyclopaedia? Thryduulf (talk) 17:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Keep. The traffic stats show a low but steady number of hits.  It is not obviously harmful or confusing.  There is no alternate page that would apply.  While it's not a redirect that I would take time to create, once created there is no benefit to deleting it.  The argument (presented in similar cases below) that this will lead to "millions" of such redirects is a strawman.  The millions haven't been created, these few have.  The only question is what to do with these few now.  There is no benefit to deleting these redirects that I can see.  Rossami (talk) 17:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - I agree. In addition to your points we already have the cross langauge links on the bottom of the article. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and if the person can't spell United States then they probably wouldn't be able to read that article anyway once they got their. --Kumioko (talk) 18:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep IMO, if a redirect is properly targeted and consistently gets 20 or more views a month, that's a good redirect. As for the redirects that get fewer views, perhaps there could be a system-wide purge at some point. Why do people type in non-English names on English Wiki? Maybe they like our pictures. If they are looking for the Dutch version of the article, they can use the redirect, then scroll down and go to the Interwiki. Who knows? It is not our place to judge their English as inadequate. Kauffner (talk) 02:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep it is even conceivable that an english speaker might come across the phrase and not realise what it meant.  I don't think we should do this sort of redirect generally, but it does no harm selectively for country names and similar really major topics.  It isn't confusing, takes more effort to remove than to keep. .  DGG ( talk ) 04:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete English speakers should be able to recognize any words that are not English, and if whatever the person comes across is not in a language that (s)he recognizes, then probably that material is not meant for her/him. Otherwise type it into some kind of language translator that translates into English without requiring know what language the original word is. I don't know if such a translator exists, but Google search provides you results that can tell you right away. Otherwise, educate yourself on recognition of other languages. Good skill to have. Mistakefinder (talk) 16:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * From the traffic stats, we know that the foreign language redirects are used by a significant number of readers. If these readers don't measure up to your high standards, they can be redirected to a warning page: "This is English Wiki! Recognize language! Educated yourself!" There can another warning for misspellers. Who wants readers who can't spell? Three strikes and you're out, that's what I say. Kauffner (talk) 04:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * So you want to allow redirects from every language to every article? 65.93.12.101 (talk) 15:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: 1) That argument is an example of the strawman fallacy.  Allowing the existing redirects is not the same as endorsing the indiscriminate creation of more.  2) So what if it were?  What bad happens if we did allow thousands of such redirects?  Wikipedia is not paper.  What harm does the project suffer if volunteers choose to extend our mandate in that direction?  Rossami (talk) 16:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete non-English redirect for an English-language topic. This is not Wiktionary. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 15:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment should also be deleted. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 15:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Addded per User talk:Magioladitis -- 00:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: So far, no one has advanced a policy-based reason to delete these foreign-language redirects.  What I see looks more like IDONTLIKEIT, which is explicitly not a valid reason to delete.  What harm to technically correct foreign language redirect do to the project?  Rossami (talk) 16:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The WP:NOTDICTIONARY mentioned is a policy-based reason. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * NOTDICTIONARY says that article content must be more than merely lexical. The page has no relevance for redirects and does not even mention them except as an option to resolve the inappropriate creation of a page which does violate NOTDICDEF.  Rossami (talk) 17:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Graziadio School of Business and Management



 * 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 page moved Thryduulf (talk) 10:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * → Graziadio School of Business and Management (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Move article to "Graziadio School of Business and Management" over redirect per WP:TITLE: no disambiguation needed. Shire Reeve (talk) 09:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * I've carried out the move as you requested, but for future reference you don't need to nominate the redirect for deletion in these circumstances. You just need to make the request at Requested moves (WP:RM). Thryduulf (talk) 10:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

美



 * 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. This redirect seems to be confusing. In addition, there is a consensus against creating foreign language redirect unless they are strongly related to the subject. Ruslik_ Zero 18:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * → United States (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Inappropriate for the English Wikipedia. It doesn't even mean United States. Magioladitis (talk) 00:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - I agree. --Kumioko (talk) 01:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete non-English (Mandarin) slang for USA. As the US is not a native-Mandarin language topic, and is a native English language topic, there's no point in this (or the EEUU redirects below). 184.144.166.85 (talk) 03:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, this is highly used, with over 100 hits every month I've looked at. According to Wiktionary, the character is the short form of "America" in Mandarin (I guess it's equivalent to an abbreviation). It also gives the full form in both simplified and traditional Chinese. These are both defined as "America, in the sense of USA", so the target is correct. Thryduulf (talk) 03:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep 美 is shortened from 美国 and translates as "United States".|en|美 There are numerous Chinese character redirects on English Wikipedia, including 陳港生, 南越, and 秦. France (法国), Germany (德国) and Vietnam (越南) all get their own Chinese redirects. Kauffner (talk) 06:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:FORRED. If we start having redirects from any possible foreign language we will end up with tenths of millions of redirects. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * we're not paper, remember. Bytes are cheap. Time wasted in discussing them is not cheap.   DGG ( talk ) 04:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:Redirect/DeletionReasons is a "guideline" and looks a little more official than the "essay" you cite, or at any rate it looks better thought out. It does not give this as a reason to delete a redirect. (See point 8. There are many Chinese in America, so the subject matter is not "unrelated". It is redirecting a significant amount of traffic and it is therefore not "very obscure".) Don't forget the immortal words of WP:Redirects are cheap: "deleting a redirect actually adds very slightly to the size of the database....Unless a redirect is actively misleading or gets in the way of a pagemove, there is little point in deleting it." Kauffner (talk) 16:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually I do not believe WP:Redirect/DeletionReasons is a guideline as much as subpage of the guideline and IMO is more of an unmarked essay in itself. Oddly though there is a discussion currently about redirects from Foreign langauge names here Wikipedia talk:Redirect on this very topic that hasn't seemed to garner much interest yet. It might be a good time to go ahead and chime in on that discussion. --Kumioko (talk) 17:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:FORRED says "please do not create" some kinds of redirects. That discussion explicitly did not get to a consensus that "once created, those redirects should be deleted".  Regardless, the relevant clause on that page is the last bullet - a "foreign title in common use even if that is not the common English".  The traffic statistics indicate that it is in regular use.  The translations offered above indicate that the redirect is technically correct. Having said all that, Wiktionary also indicates alternate meanings.  Unfortunately, someone "cleaned up" all the inbound links so we can't evaluate which meaning has been intended by Wikipedia editors so we're left guessing.  Given the ambiguity, I could see an argument to retarget via soft-redirect to the Wiktionary page.  The definition which mentions the US is cross-linked back to the Wikipedia page.  Rossami (talk) 18:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I would also like to point out that Українська, which is an interservice link to United States is not one of the redirects but yet receives over 100 hits a month as shown here. This leads me to believe that the logic utilized to generate these numbers by this stats program are not without some error. --Kumioko (talk) 20:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Українська is a redirect to Ukrainian language, so I'm not sure what point you are trying to make? Thryduulf (talk) 21:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Its one of the transwiki links on the United States article that links presumable to the United States article on the Ukrainian Wikipedia. My point was that if we are going to keep the redirects to languages with 1 - 10 hits a month then that sets he stage to justify the ones with over 100. I just don't think that having hundreds of even thousands of improbable or non english redirects in the english Wikipedia. If they can't type United States then they can't read the article. The exception IMO should be for things like having the German translation of Germany redirecting to the German article. Just because someone somewhere in the world might spell Germany as Jermany or Germinny doesn't mean we should make a redirect for it just in case someone mistypes it or doesn't know how to spell it. --Kumioko (talk) 23:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Interwiki links and redirects are entirely different entities and serve different audiences. An interwiki link (as we use them here) is primarily a research tool, aiding editors who want to compare articles across the different projects to cross-fertilize and improve the versions.  Someone clicking an interwiki link can be assumed to have at least some minimal ability to translate the target page.  Redirects, on the other hand, are intended for the people who don't know the language - people who see the mention and want to know what it means.  They may copy-paste it into the search box or see it linked in passing in an otherwise mostly english article.  They can be assumed to read english but not necessarily to read the language of the redirect. Regardless of one's opinion on the value of foreign language redirects, the comparison to interwiki links does not really apply.  Rossami (talk) 02:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks yes I am aware of the differences however many of the redirects for WPUS are nothing more than interwikilinks turned into redirects with more added in just in case someone misspells something. Just because 美 has a few hits a month doesn't mean that the intent of the ones looking for it were looking for United States and even if 美 didn't exist at all the stats program would count the number of hits even if it was a red link. It doesn't matter if the target exists it just counts what was clicked. --Kumioko (talk) 03:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes the stats page counts hits for pages that don't exist, but pages that don't exist do not help our readers find what they are looking for, which is the point of redirects. Why would we want to make it harder for people to find the content they are looking for? Thryduulf (talk) 09:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Wikitionary page per the | Wikitionary page, there's a lot of compound words that use 美. The Wiktionary entry would be more helpful to our Chinese speaking readers as it points to more variations of the character's use as a dab page of sorts.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 01:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep it is quite conceivable that an English speaker might come across the character and not realise what it meant.  I don't think we should do this sort of redirect generally, but it does no harm selectively for country names and similar really major topics.  It isn't confusing, takes more effort to remove than to keep. A limit amount of overlap with a dictionary does no harm, since we're NOT PAPER..  DGG ( talk ) 04:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Agree with Magioladitis. Redirects in English Wikipedia from foreign languages are inappropriate and unnecessary, much less non-Roman scripts. If we allow this, should we create redirects in Tibetan and Arabic for every entry? Any English speaker who comes across 美 would have to first recognize it as Chinese, be able to pronounce it, and be able to type using Pinyin to even have done the search. This basically requires good Chinese knowledge. Are we gonna start assuming average English speakers know Chinese now? This redirect's function is a language translator which Wikipedia is not. All foreign language redirects should be removed, other than those imported foreign terms in common English usage such as "resume" typed without accents for "résumé", "maitre d'", "enchilada", or Latin terms like "per se", etc. An English speaker should have enough sense to recognize what is English and what's not. If he or she can't, (s)he should just Yahoo or google the term and look at the English results that comes up. Just because bytes are cheap and Wikipedia isn't paper desn't mean we should stupidly do any useless thing. --Mistakefinder (talk) 16:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete And to address Kauffner's point: Although 美 can be a Chinese abbrev. for "the US", but only in specific context when you know you're talking about countries. 美 by itself actually only means "beautiful". (Yes I am Taiwanese and understand Chinese.) So just because someone created those Chinese redirects for many countries doesn't mean they should stay. Rather, these other language searches should be typed in a trans-langague search engine like Google. Mistakefinder (talk) 16:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * When making multiple comments within deletion discussions, please do not use the bolded "keep/delete" format more than once in the list. It creates unnecessary confusion for the admin who eventually has to close the discussion.  Thanks.  Rossami (talk)
 * Delete, potentially confusing foreign abbreviation with multiple other meanings. —Кузьма討論 10:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment should also be deleted along with this one. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 15:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete. Not a term for a Chinese-related entity, which is the guideline specified at WP:FORRED. And for the same reason, should be deleted. -- HXL's  Roundtable  and  Record  14:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete this redirect, because the character has multiple meanings, but keep . WP:FORRED is not a guideline, and we are not bound by it. I believe that foreign language redirects are useful for some readers, if the term is correct.--Danaman5 (talk) 07:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)