Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 May 10

The result of the discussion was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• New Great Depression → Late-2000s recession

POV redirect created after a poor article creation (copy/paste from existing article) with no wp:RSes backing it. Unlikely as a search term. NJGW (talk) 23:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Similar redirects (what's the proper way to list all these for deletion here?)

Great Depression of 2008

2008 Great Depression

Depression of 2008

The Greater Depression

Great Depression II

2nd Great Depression

The Great Depression II

Late 2000s depression

- NJGW (talk) 23:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all. These are all OR neologisms, and they should go for that reason. — Gavia immer (talk) 12:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Change the name of the article to New Great Depression. The situation really is bad enough to earn that name. There are NO JOBS! Shtop Shtealing from my Store (talk) 21:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all and any similar nonsense that gets made up. Ratemonth (talk) 00:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep most Some of them are very likely search terms. At least Depression of 2008 should stay , and any others for which there are a substantial number of uses. They do no harm, and they will help many readers.I don;t excatly see how they are nonsense--they're in all but the most narrow of technical senses very good descriptions. As for RSs, "Depression of 2008 has 28 GNews uses, DGG (talk) 07:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all Is not yet defined as a depression. Can't be defined as one until several years have gone by. --Valyim (talk) 16:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all as harmless. Yes, we can't call it that but there's no harm in a redirect if it helps people reach the proper article. –xeno ^talk 17:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• keep most as it is the article that should clarify what the events are, the redirect just helps someone find the information that they are looking for. weak delete New Great Depression as new is an indeterminate classification, and at some point becomes old. weak delete The Greater Depression as it is unspecific as to what it is greater than. PaulJones (talk) 21:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete all. Because these terms are all OR neologisms, they are confusing and ambiguous. There are nearly 200 countries in the world, and tens of thousands of regional and local administrative divisions, and many of them have experienced at least one economic crisis that earned the name "Depression of [Year]", "Great Depression", and so on. The worst "offenders" in this regard are the redirect titles that make no reference to any year, such as New Great Depression, The Greater Depression, Great Depression II, and so on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Black Falcon (talk • contribs) 21:57, May 18, 2009 (UTC)

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

The result of the discussion was Converted to {{wi}} pointing to Wikt:TLDR. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• TL;DR → Wikipedia:Too long; didn't read

Cross-namespace redirect. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 19:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• redirect to TLDR --Enric Naval (talk) 22:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:TLDR; I've proposed removing several redirects, including TL;DR, because there is not really any "too long; didn't read" matter anywhere in the Wikipedia namespace.--NapoliRoma (talk) 03:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or, to move it here:

• redirect TLDR and tldr to top-level domain
• delete Too Long To Read / Too long, didn't read / TL;DR / Tl;dr --NapoliRoma (talk) 18:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Probably should've just been boldly redirected to TLDR. –xeno ^talk 18:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to TLDR. I don't think the disambiguation page is valid, but a separate deletion discussion would be needed for that. —Snigbrook 19:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• comment - why a deletion discussion? Just as with any underpopulated dab page, the appropriate action would seem to be to make it (TLDR) a redir to the only valid entry currently on the page, which is top-level domain.--NapoliRoma (talk) 21:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to have wound down. I will change TLDR and tldr to redirect to top-level domain per above; can an admin remove the four redirects that have no valid targets (Too Long To Read / Too long, didn't read / TL;DR / Tl;dr) based on this discussion, or should I tag them for deletion? (g8?)--NapoliRoma (talk) 23:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just read Snigbrook's comments again on Talk:TLDR. Agree that using {{wi}} for TL;DR and Tl;dr would be more useful. We could even then make Too long, didn't read a redirect to TL;DR... .--NapoliRoma (talk) 00:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Too long, didn't read. The semicolon makes it clear that that's where it should go. JuJube (talk) 03:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Problem is that Too long, didn't read is itself a redirect. Even worse, it's currently a cross-namespace redirect (my fault).--NapoliRoma (talk) 05:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Soft redirect this to Wikt:TLDR. Same for too long, didn't read etc. It's likely enough that someone will try looking this up to find out what it means, so we should point to something useful. But it's a dicdef with little more to say about it, and that's what Wiktionary is for. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Wizardman 02:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - highly unlikely search term, no edit history that needs to be preserved (redirect created after the article was deleted at AFD). Otto4711 (talk) 16:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, I don't think I'm doing anything wrong in listing this but twice now I'm getting that bizarre result. I don't know how to fix it. Otto4711 (talk) 16:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't do anything wrong. Someone edited the {{rfd2}} template and their change broke it I have reverted that change and fixed your nomination. -- JLaTondre (talk) 17:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete if nothing else because of the word "trivia". Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 19:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• delete as unlikely term. PaulJones (talk) 22:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• delete very unlikely. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose (Keep) - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Philippine presidential trivia. Though it's been deleted as "trivia", that doesn't mean that the information may not be "useful" someday. (In looking over the deleted page, there were quite a few references.) Even if a third of the information was used for article building. And as many admins will restore such information to editors willing to develop the information, retaining the location for WhatLinksHere would seem appropriate so that it's not totally lost in the ether. And besides, as they say, "redirects are cheap". That said, I would not oppose someone restoring this page; moving it to Philipine Presidential trivia (per United States Presidential trivia); redeleting the content; and then redirecting to President of the Philippines. - jc37 20:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was speedily deleted per G7. –xeno ^talk 18:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary redirect, this redirect should be in template not the article page. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 16:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• delete cross-namespace redirect. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• delete I made it by accident.Jwalte04 (talk) 03:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was delete both. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

• The Other Side (Poltergeist films' spiritual otherworld) → Poltergeist (film series)

Delete both - entirely improbable search terms. No edit history at either location that needs to be preserved. Otto4711 (talk) 15:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• delete the one with the spelling error weak delete the other mainly due to the subject not really being included in the target (nor in the articles for any of the films), though it could be, resulting in the most useful information on 'the other side' being the full title of the redirect itself. PaulJones (talk) 22:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Just "WikiCommons" in russian. This redirect has no pages link to it, thus becomes useless. Explorer09 (talk) 14:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Likely enough of a search term if you're Russian. [insert Russian Reveral joke here.] Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 19:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete hum, if russian people search for the word in russian, then google should find the russian wikipedia, not the english one. I think that we don't make redirects for names in foreing languages unless there is a reason for a specific language in a specific article. I don't think that there is consensus to have redirects from every language to every page, so we should re move the ones that appear. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Commons is not a Russian entity, and until recently was English-only, so it is not a native language redirect, and English Wikipedia is not the Russian Wikipedia, so the Russian name to non-Russian items should not exist. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 03:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, harmless. –xeno ^talk 18:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per TenPoundHammer. Page tagged as a redirect from an alternative language. - Eureka Lott 18:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I have to add that this was incorrect tagging, as the linked guideline WP:Naming conventions (use English) mentions redirects next to the words "native name" which is clearly not the case. Same goes for another category added to redirect: Category:Redirects from Russian words/names contains only the names and things that are originally Russian. — AlexSm 18:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I may be mistaken, but the naming conventions page you cited says that "redirects from non-English names are encouraged", but it does not address whether other non-English redirects are appropriate. If Category:Redirects from Russian words/names is intended to be used as you described, a description to that effect would be helpful. As far as I can tell, Wikipedia:Redirects does not spell out when it is appropriate and when it is not appropriate to create a redirect from another language. There is Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Redirects from foreign languages, but it was never adopted as a guideline. - Eureka Lott 19:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: it is useless, it's not really harmless since it shows up in drop-down search results, and it's not even "official": just some wikipedians decided on this particular translation (i.e. I doubt there are reliable sources that mention this name for WikiCommons). Finally, I don't see any sense in creating all possible redirects from all possible languages. — AlexSm 19:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete redirects from foreign languages are disfavored unless there is some connection (the Cyrillic form of Moscow or Russia or Lenin would be fine as a redirect, the Russian for not particularly Russian things as tomato, gold, or William Shakespeare would not). This is more of the non-Russian variety than Russian-related, so it goes - or do we want to change everything so that we can have Guillermo Shakespeare redirect appropriately lest someone find their way wrong. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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