This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 14, 2016.
2022 Summer Youth Olympic Games
[edit]- 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion wasretarget both2023 Summer Youth Olympics{{R from former name}}. The discussion has found that the games were postponed from 2022 to 2023.Deryck C.23:29, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, event does not exist. There will be Summer Youth Olympics in 2018 and 2023, but not 2022. --Tavix(talk)17:19, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Can it be speedied as a Hoax?Legacypac (talk)19:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete perWP:CRYSTAL. It ismuch too premature to have that title at Wikipedia. (And if it weren't too premature, WP:CRYSTAL allows (slightly) forward-lookingarticles, not redirects.Rossami(talk)19:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- To be fair, this isn't aWP:HOAX. At the time these redirects were created, the 2023 Youth Olympicswere scheduled to happen in 2022 — according to their article, the decision to shift it from 2022 to 2023 didn't happen until about 1.5 yearsafter somebody tried to create a premature Wikipedia article about 2022. So it was a good faith and fully honest creation at the time, albeitWP:TOOSOON and hence replaced with redirects instead, whichlater got rescheduled to a new year by a decision of its organizers. Given the change in circumstances I don't see the redirects as hugely necessary anymore — although redirecting them to the 2023 event, on the grounds thatsome users might be genuinely confused by the interval from 2018 being five years instead of four, would also be an option — but they're a thing thatwas going to happen exactly as the title states and then got rescheduled later on, not a hoax. Eitherdelete, orretarget to 2023 to prevent possible confusion.Bearcat (talk)20:02, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both per Bearcat asWP:RFD#D2 confusing to redirect 2022 to 2023. Neither has any internal links beyond this discussion.Si Trew (talk)21:01, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both since the event won't happen in 2022.Joseph2302 (talk)23:53, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both -- won't happen, and therefore meaningless. --The Anome (talk)00:18, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Retarget to2023 Summer Youth Olympics - given Bearcat's explanation, someone coming here to find information about the 2022 event will find that information at the 2023 article, which explains the postponement.Ivanvector 🍁 (talk)15:51, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Retarget{{R from former name}} per Ivanvector --70.51.200.135 (talk)04:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Relisting comment: To allow further discussion of the proposed retarget. Also I'm amused by the low volume of RfD nominations on Valentine's Day.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,Deryck C.23:08, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply] - Regarget per 70.51.200.135 (with the rcat), in turn per Ivanvector. It isn't true this is a hoax, and it's encyclopedically useful. Anyone noting or already knowing the usual timing of these events, but unaware of the rescheduling, will expect this to work. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 20:03, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
- 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion waskeepChrystia, andKhrystyne as
{{R from given name}} - while not unanimous, the rough consensus is that where Wikipedia has only one person with a given name of a certain exact spelling, it is preferable to redirect to the person's biography rather than pointing to a name index page withsimilar or related names. The other items have clearer consensus:Name indexChrystine,Jaynie, andJuliann;DisambiguateShenae.@Tavix: Thanks for drafting the name indices.Deryck C.16:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]- Amendment -RelistShenae separately atWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 25#Shenae. BDD and Tavix quickly pointed out that they advocated keeping it - I had incorrectly counted them as neutral on this one as their comments didn't specifically respond to the disambiguation proposal.Deryck C.17:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neelix redirects that failsWP:PTMMrLinkinPark333 (talk)03:27, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I've got a split !vote that reflects current practice atWP:APO:
- Note: These are NOT "alternative" spellings for any other name. They are correct spellings for the people who have those names. --Tavix(talk)06:43, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Those people are using alternative spellings of names for which we have articles under other spellings. The targets are articles for which these spellings are alternative spellings, so they are indeed alternate spellings, since the proposed targets are not biography articles. --70.51.200.135 (talk)03:01, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- No, forChrystia Freeland, for example, her name is "Chrystia," not "Christy." "Christy Freeland" is not an alternative spelling for her name, it is simply incorrect. It works just the same for any other name, "Jaynie" is a unique and different name than "Jayne." AtWP:APO, we set up our name indexes to reflect that. --Tavix(talk)03:06, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the proposed target is not "Chrystia Freeland", it is "Christy" (or actually "Christine" but we have an article on "Christy"). "Chrystia" is another form of "Christy". Ms. Freeland has nothing to do with it, since she would no longer be the target of the redirect. Given names have many variants and pet forms. Some parents frequently choose unique or rare spellings of given names to give a sense of identity to their children. We should not need to write new articles on every single letter difference in names as new name articles. --70.51.200.135 (talk)03:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The scope of the article on "Christy" coversjust those people who are named "Christy." It doesn't cover anything else, because anything else is a separate name. You're assuming these names are related, but since we don't have any sources connecting the names, it's a violation ofWP:OR. What we do instead is include see-alsos or hatnotes to names that look and sound similar (eg: Kristy, Christie), but without sources, you don't have any authority to connect those dots. Furthermore, our readers are competent: they are searching for "Chrystia" for a reason, and are more likely than not to be looking for "Chrystia Freeland" (an exact match), than to be completely messing up the spelling for someone named "Christy." We need to reward our readers for spelling Ms. Freeland's name correctly, and for all others, that's why we have hatnotes. --Tavix(talk)04:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Ioppose deletion. Given names arenot partial-title matches, because virtually every person can reasonably be referred to by their given name. If we have one notable person by any of these names, they properly should redirect to that person as an{{R from given name}}. If not, a set index. We can still hatnote to the more conventional spelling, but the only one here close enough for confusion IMO is "Juliann", which is worth a hatnote toJulianne. --BDD (talk)16:11, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Name indexes for Chrystine, Jaynie, and Juliann, per Tavix.Retarget Chrystine and Chrystia, and especiallySetindexify Shenae, per 70.51.200.135. Is there any actual consensus record in favor of "It is used becauseWikipedia has only one biographical article of a person by this given name, or because one individual is ubiquitously known by this given name"? Or did someone just create a
{{R from given name}} and stick their own "rule" in it? Even if there is, it seems like the least useful option. And if any subject were actually "ubiquitously known by this given name" they would already be at that name here, perWP:COMMONNAME, which leads me to suspect someone just made it up for template documentation without thinking very hard about it. The only use case I can think of for R from given name is made-up names, like Dweezil, that are unique in the encyclopedic realm yet not by themselves the actual common name of the subject. Rare. Also, "virtually every person can reasonably be referred to by their given name" is a good argumentagainst redirects like these from faintly unusual spellings to some particular person. Finally, no we do not need to "reward" readers for typing weird names correctly;WP:NOT#GAME.PS: I have improved the cross-referencing and such between the various Christie, Christy, etc. disambiguation pages, and moved the Christie-as-a-given-name material toChristy (given name) as an alternative spelling, since theChristie (name) (nowChristie (surname)) article is about the Scottish surname and has nothing to do with the diminutive of Christin[e|a]. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 21:36, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm glad to see I'm not the only person with misgivings against{{r from given name}}s. They may make sense in some limited contexts, but for the most part they are a maintenance & usability nightmare: their creators leave them to rot & interfere with searches even as Wikipedia builds up more and more articles about people by the same name. With regards toJaynie, for example, it has beenseven years since the statement "Wikipedia has only one biographical article of a person by this given name" became untrue, and no one noticed until now. In the meantime, we've probably confused the hell out of hundreds of searchers who were trying to find information about the name Jaynie or at least one of the other people by that name, but instead got landed on Jaynie Seal's page without any indication of why they weren't getting search results.58.176.246.42 (talk)10:13, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Except Jaynie was never tagged as a redirect from given name, which is why it was never maintained. Most of that category was populated by me, and Ido expand them into lists where required. —Xezbeth (talk)13:59, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, and those maintenance efforts are much appreciated, but unfortunately the vast majority of redirects aren't categorised in the first place. Given name redirects tend to languish for years because they're so hard to hunt down, unless something else draws attention to the user's creation history (like happened here). Seven years isn't even a record;Mitsuhide took eight years between the second article about a person by that name getting created and the redirect getting listified.58.176.246.42 (talk)16:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Relisted, seeWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 23#モンスターペアレント
- 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion waskeep the first,retarget the others toFoo-foo. Since the Miss Piggy item was merged, I'll move it to a clean title that can continue to redirect there first. --BDD (talk)16:27, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See also previous day'sWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 13#Foo Foo.*Delete asWP:RFD#D2 confusing perWP:XY, or send it to the DAB atFoo-foo if we must. This doesn't disambiguate very well, becauseFoo Foo andFoo-Foo are also dogs (and all are poodles, at that). Not used in any internal links. 90-day stats areFoo-foo 1341 (15/day)Foo Foo 125 (1/day)Foo Foo (dog) 271 (3/day) andFoo-Foo 653 (7/day); that doesn't maybe tell us much because we don't know if people end up where they expected.Si Trew (talk)00:25, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This redirect exists for a simple reason: virtually all of the Western media coverage of this animal referred to it asFoo Foo (see[1]. The reason the article is atFufu (dog) is because that is how it is transcribed using thestandard Thai-to-Latin alphabet transcription system (i.e. ฟูฟู → fufu).Prioryman (talk)01:09, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not the point, which is that it's not theonly dog known as Foo Foo; I don't think it automatically follows that because the article disambiguates with (dog) then the redirect must.
In any case, the article should probably be moved to "Foo Foo (something)":WP:TRANSLITERATE (policy) says "if there is a common English-language form of the name, then use it, even if it is unsystematic", andWP:ENGLISH (policy) concurs with "do not substitute a systematically transliterated name for the common English form of the name, if there is one".Si Trew (talk)06:18, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as an entirely plausible alternate transliteration. If there is a strong argument to disambiguate, that should be hashed out on the respective talk pages. Deletion of the pagehistory is unnecessary before making that decision.Rossami(talk)22:48, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Clerk action: I think there's a clear case for merging this discussion with that ofFoo Foo on the Feb 13 log. In addition, the discussion thus far suggestsFoo-Foo may also be changed. Please continue the discussion for all three redirects here.Deryck C.11:25, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- which makes the three !votes above nonsense since they refer to different things. SiTrew-- ip editing as84.3.187.196 (talk)23:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Posts below this line are after consolidation of the nominations into a block.
- Retarget all to the DAB page: These are a mixture of randomly-transliterated non-English, and baby-talk, neither of which have consistent spellings in English. These do not really qualify forWP:SMALLDETAILS and none are the article titles, anyway, just redirs. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 19:57, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Disambiguate all (as per SMcCandlish).<<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk)22:27, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- KeepFoo Foo (dog),WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: the others don't have articles.Retarget the others to the disambiguation as they are ambiguous. (IMHO: I think the late merge muddied this discussion somewhat. I don't think this was a clear case either.) --Tavix(talk)04:11, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- KeepFoo Foo (dog)Foo Foo (dog) as disambiguation,,Retarget the others toFoo-foo (the DAB). I've boldly made a hatnote atFufu (dog) (withthis change); we'll need to change that too if we don't keepFoo Foo (dog)Foo Foo (dog). But after this closes I'll probably open an RM discussion for reversing the redirect perWP:COMMONNAME; it's not a "random" translation but the most common one in Western sources, according toUser:Prioryman above.Si Trew (talk)04:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment also note thatFoo fooFoo foo targets the DAB atFoo-foo and has done so since September 2009. I've rcatted it as
{{R from other punctuation}}. We also have dog breeds listed at the DAB atFoo Dog but they seem to be entirely different.Si Trew (talk)04:27, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
